PhilosopherJay

Robin Lane Fox is an atheist and historian, so I take what he says quite seriously. I have been reading his 1992 book, "The Unauthorized Version" (or via: amazon.co.uk) on the Bible. It seems that Fox is convinced of the existence of an historical Jesus.

One should note that this book was written before the recent round of serious internet arguments and books raising doubt about an historical Jesus which we have seen in the last 15 years or so. I am not sure if he is aware of these arguments and if his position has changed at all.

In any case he notes the difficulties in determining facts about the historical Jesus, but considers on pg. 286, "What, then, can historians know about him?"

This is his answer:

Thus, according to Fox we have six minimum historical facts about Jesus which were publicly recognized (presumably at the time of his death) and on which all Gospels agree.
1) Twelve followers
2) He spoke of Kingdom of god
3) Inscription on cross read "King of the Jews"
4) Came into conflict with some of the Jews
5) He was arrested, but not his followers
6) He was put to death by crucifixion involving the Romans in some way.

I am not really sure why any of these things would be excluded if we were dealing with a fictional story. Even within the limited criteria of all Gospels matching and being "public facts" that would have been known by the general public at large, these facts are not without their problems. Here are some of them.

1. Twelve followers. Fox draws our attention to 1 Corinthians 15.1. This reads:
He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles
It seems clear that the Twelve referred to by Paul refers to some group that is different from the apostles. Apparently, the writer of Paul knew something about the number 12 and Jesus, but only something that happened with 12 after’s Jesus’ resurrection, not that he had 12 followers.

2. He spoke of the kingdom of God. He speaks of the Kingdom of God, some 22 times in Mark, 46 times in Luke, 52 times in Matthew, but 2 times in one passage in John, “3.1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews. 3.2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him." 3.3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 3.4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 3.5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This passage is unique to John.

3. Inscription on cross read King of the Jews. Actually each gospel reports a different inscription: Mathew has: (27:37) And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews." Mark has (15.26) And the inscription of the charge against him read, "The King of the Jews." Luke has (23.38) There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews." And John has (19.19) Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

4. Came into conflict with some of the Jews. Was there ever a Jewish character real or imaginary who didn’t come into conflict with some of the Jews?

5. He was arrested, but not his followers. The exact opposite of Odysseus. He survived the Odyssey, but none of his followers did. The main character’s fate is usually different than his followers in fiction, isn’t it? The gospel of Mark suggests they did try to arrest the followers, (14:48)"And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a robber? 49“Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures.” 50And they all left Him and fled.

51A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. 52But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked."
How do we know that some of the other followers weren't arrested later and crucified and the writers didn't decide to leave those other guys out?

6. He was put to death by crucifixion. We get agreement on the gospel authors on this unless you look at Acts 5:30 which says, “The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree." and Acts 10:39, "They killed him by hanging him on a tree," and Acts 13:29 "they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb." Further there's Galatians 3:13, "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." and 1 Peter 2:24, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."
There is certainly a difference between a cross and a tree. It is certainly weird to think of Jesus being forced to carry the tree that he is going to be hung on. If Jesus was hung on a tree, I assume people would not use the term crux (stake) to describe it. I guess we may assume these writers were being metaphorical, but why is Luke, if the same writer who wrote the gospel, repeatedly using the metaphorical term "tree" when he wrote "cross" in the gospel.

Our minimal historical Jesus seems even more minimal now,
1. He had something to do with 12 somethings or 12 some ones.
2. He spoke often of the kingdom of God, but maybe it was seldom.
3. An inscription on his cross said Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus Christ or just said the guy getting crucified was King of the Jews.
4. He did something/s that someone didn't like but we're not sure what or who.
5. He was arrested and crucified alone, or at least that is all people wrote about, so this may not be a fact.
6. He was crucified or maybe hung from a tree in some way and the Romans were involved.

Even Fox' core minimum of historical facts seem shaky by his own criteria to me.
Opinions?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

shadowfox

Is he considering the books of the NT actual history?

What other sources of historical information are there for any historical Jesus? Does he consider any of these?

Vorkosigan

No criteria. If "mentioned in all four gospels" were a criteria than there would be a lot more. If it were Paul + gospels, there would be a lot less. He's just going with some bizarre gut feeling.

Vorkosigan

Sheshbazzar

Yep. As has been done millions of times by tens of thousands of the hegemonies 'scholars'. And why not, after all it is also what always 'sells' best.

PhilosopherJay

Hi shadowfox,

Yes, he does consider the NT as history. He considers that Acts and some letters of Paul and perhaps the Gospel of John comes from primary eyewitnesses.

He generally considers what we know about Jewish and Roman practices generally from the time period and compares them to the text. So, he uses Philo, Josephus and the Roman historians and writers from the period.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigian,

Fox does add the idea of "Public" knowledge to the idea of agreement in the four gospels. For example, what Jesus said to Pilate or the Apostles in private would not be publicly known and anybody could make it up, so we can't trust this type of information. On the other hand, the inscription on the plague or cross where he was crucified saying "king of the Jews" would have been seen by many people passing by.

It seems to me that even this would not guarantee historical truth rather than literary invention.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena

I like that - 'public' knowledge. Because without that the gospel story could not run. Literary invention, if it contains a re-telling of public knowledge in a creative storyline, has a far better chance of success that pure imagination. Being able to connect the dots has more going for it than a storyline with no obvious beginning, no connection to what is publicly known. So, a man is crucified. The story tells about the notice above his cross - King of the Jews. And public knowledge will lead where? To a carpenter from wherever who had notions above himself? That story can lead to only one place in history. Antigonus in 37 b.c. - and to that Herodian Jew who paid a Roman assassin. Stuff for conspiracy stories to be sure - or gospel stories - look at Diana or Kennedy. The reality, however, is the very public knowledge as to how they died.

Doug Shaver

I've read the book, too, a couple of times.

I got the impression that, like just about everyone else, Fox simply reads the surviving documents with a presupposition of Jesus' historicity. The only thing his atheism does is keep the notion of divine inspiration out of his head.

Obviously, I think he ought to be more skeptical than he is. However, I also think it's to his credit that he does not assume that whatever any early Christian wrote must be a falsehood.

aa5874

The authors TOLD us how the story was fabricated so there is NO need to talk about Antigonus.

Matthew 27:35 KJV We were told how is was done it was given on a "platter" .

Quite Remarkably, the Source of the fabricated Jesus is in ONE CANON which consists of the Old and New Testament.

Once you have a Bible then you have the SOURCE of the Invention, you have a Copy of the Documents used to INVENT the Jesus character.

Today, HJers are NOW publicly declaring that their NEW Jesus is directly from the very same Bible when they say their Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

ALL versions of Jesus are FUNDAMENTALLY from the BIBLE.

It is PUBLICLY circulated and Documented that HJers use gMark and the Pauline writings in the Bible for the Biography of their Jesus.

mountainman

Skepticism is a S-WORD,
designed to sever facts from fictions.







There are obviously various degrees of skepticism about the hypothesis of an historical Jesus. To complicate matters there are also obviously various degrees of skepticism about the hypothesis that early Christians were describing the ancient historical truth, and were not simply writing fiction. There is no credit to the entire investigation in dismissing the possibility that the earliest Christians were inventors.



Greetings once again Philosopher Jay,

I enjoyed watching the new movie "Sherlock Holmes II". I had not seen the first movie. I dont want to spoil anyone's religious ethics by discussion the ending of this movie. I suggest to anyone who wants to keep the suspense going through to the very END close this browser window now.




.



WARNING: Do not scroll down.
The ending to Sherlock Holmes II is about to be discussed ....

.



WARNING: Do not scroll down.
The ending to Sherlock Holmes II is about to be discussed ....
.



WARNING: Do not scroll down.
The ending to Sherlock Holmes II is about to be discussed ....




The END? Sherlock Holmes' RESURRECTION from the PIT


OMG - Harry Houdini - does Sherlock really die?


Sherlock is indeed a miracle worker.

Did Jesus play chess or Go? In his head?

Did Jesus use martial arts against the stall holders when he overturned their tables at the temple?

And if so what style?




The Ammonian Canon tables (supposedly a 3rd century invention of Ammonius the Alexandrian teacher of the Christian Origen) make explicit the cases of this limited criteria of all Gospels matching.

If we assume "Sherlock Holmes III" and "Sherlock Holmes IV" are released in the future there will come a time that a list of important events in the career of Sherlock Holmes will be shared in the four Sherlock Holmes' movies.

Should my skepticism that Sherlock Holmes was an historical person be diminished if, at this future time it is found, we have six minimum facts about Sherlock Holmes, which were publicly recognized, and on which all Movies agree?

I dont think so.



What is the Fiction Exclusion Principle?

It appears to be a principle invoked by those who have reached a certain limit of skeptical thinking.




Best wishes




Pete