Rick Sumner

Price is mistaken. The cross is essentially unanimous among historical Jesus scholarship. Yes, I'm aware you can name some who deny it. I can name scholars who deny Caesar crossed the Rubicon. We're both ignoring the most outer fringe.


Caesar is the bog standard example. I recently wrote a blog post exploring what makes this an historical fact. It isn't simply a question of certainty or superior method.


If your point holds about Caesar, so does mine about Jesus. I can name historians who deny he crossed, as I know you're aware. Producing actual consensus in the humanities almost always requires selective representation.

Rick Sumner

mountainman

The "historical fact" of the cross appears in the archaeological record of the 4th century. See the legend of Helena. That the cross is essentially unanimous among historical Jesus scholarship only goes to show just how much this HJ scholarship is disconnected from the "historical facts".





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

MrMacSon

What's the significance of 'the cross' appearing in the archaeological record of the 4th C? What about before-hand?

My understanding is that crucifixion in the 1st C was carried out on X or T shaped crosses, not 't' shaped ones.

Rick Sumner

Given that I was explicitly referring to the claim made by Price I can only assume you didn't bother to read what was being stated before you started on your pet theory.

Rick Sumner

mountainman

Outside of the "scanty and suspicious [literary] materials of ecclesiastical history [which] seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church", the extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century CE, and that the crucifix, that is a cross upon which an image of Christ is present, is not known to have been used until the 6th century CE.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Grog

While I agree that the crucifixion is the one area of consensus amongst Jesus scholars, I am wondering what scholars argue that Caesar did not cross the Rubicon? What I can glean suggests that there is doubt about the exact circumstances of the crossing and if Caesar uttered his famous "the die is cast" line, but that there seems to be no debate on whether he crossed the Rubicon. History records an immediate wake in the aftermath of this event.

It is interesting to note, though, that while this event, the Crucifixion, is the apparent one "fact" upon which all historicists agree, our actual evidence for this event is completely non-historical. Every element of the story as related in the record is traceable to inspirations that do not rest on oral tradition or any other means of transmission from the 30s to the 60s or 70s. There is no notice of this event in the history of the time until long after the event. And I think there might have been some question even amongst ancient believers as to whether this event occurred (for example, Minucius Felix seems to deny it).

Rick Sumner

Robert Morstein-Marx has expressed significant doubt. It's incredibly odd that Caesar himself fails to mention it in the Civil War. If Caesar could point to such a clear beginning, he should have. Doubting it isn't unreasonable, and every biographer of the great Caesar is aware of the problems of our sources, but they never get mentioned. Ultimately it doesn't matter if he did or not, the importance of the fact is what it symbolizes--the border. It's a fact at least as much because it's treated as one and it's useful as it is because we know it to be true. That's why, in my post, when I moved to compare to the cross, I switched it to Augustan rule of Rome. That's much more a fact in the traditional sense.

Tenorikuma

Indeed, our only "historical" source for crucifixion seems to be Mark. Paul occasionally refers to the "stauros" of Jesus, but he only seems to use it in a metaphorical, mythological sense. The one concrete reference to death on a cross in Phil. 2 is an interpolation.

Saying we know for sure Jesus died on a cross is a bit like saying we know for sure Mithras slew a bull. All we really know for sure is that it is an essential part of the mystery-religion symbolism associated with Jesus.

mountainman

To compound the uncertainty some sources from antiquity clearly state that Jesus was NOT crucified - but that someone else was crucified - on the cross in place of Jesus (who is presented as laughing at the event). What are ancient historians to do with such sources? Ignore them like the Biblical historians? I don't think so.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Adam

Yeah, only someone who's totally into insane denial would ignore them. <removed>.