Is the story of the crucifixion actual history?

[Jagella]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person. They are sometimes referred to as "historicists." Historicists, including Bart Ehrman, an atheist, argue that Jesus was probably historical because the early Christians would not have made up an embarrassing story like the crucifixion. A crucified messiah is just too hard for people to believe!

It's not hard to counter this argument. It assumes that the early Christians were embarrassed by their savior being crucified. Do we know this assumption to be true? Yes, some of us today might see such an event as embarrassing, but we project our own feelings onto first-century Jews living in a culture much different from our own. We are remiss to assume that an unorthodox sect of Jews would feel like we do today.

Another difficulty for the embarrassment theory is that the Romans crucified many Jews and were hated for it. The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion story to create sympathy for Jesus among the Jews and even gentiles who may have lost loved ones to the horror of crucifixion. Christians could claim then as they do today that "Jesus died for you" as they might say to a potential convert. Laying guilt trips on people can be a powerful motivation to unbelievers to join a religious group.

Yet another rationale for fabricating the crucifixion story is that it sets up the resurrection of Jesus. Without a crucified Christ his followers could not have claimed Jesus' rose from the dead, perhaps the greatest miracle of the New Testament.

Finally, if we are smart enough to assume that a presumably embarrassing story like the resurrection is unlikely to be made up and hence is likely to be true, then perhaps the early Christians thought the same way. They may have fabricated the crucifixion to lead unbelievers to conclude that Jesus was real because nobody would make up an embarrassing story! If so, then their trick is having its intended effect on modern historicists.

In any event, it is not difficult to come up with reasons for fabricating the crucifixion story. There are probably many you can think of. I should point out that the crucifixion story hasn't hurt Christianity much; Catholic churches proudly display paintings of the crucified Christ and place crucifixes in all their churches. Few if any will leave the church over this belief.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

[Mithrae]

You've provided a lot of... well, 'hand-waving' to use your term, but no actual reasons to suppose that the arguments for a pre-Markan passion narrative are incorrect.

If you dont think my interpretation of JofA is persuasive and that its a garbled version of the Samaritan town of Rathamin attested in 1 Maccabees then we have to leave it there I would assume.

That's what the good folk at the Jewish Virtual Library think. That verse (1 Maccabees 11:34) explicitly states that the town was transferred to Judean control, so I'm not sure why you keep describing it as a Samaritan town. Moreover the Septuagint, which is what the JVL referred to, calls it Ramathem, which obviously a closer match for ha-Ramathaim. The KJV also has 'Ramathem' and the Douay-Rheims has Ramatha. The probable identity between Mark's Greek version of ha-Ramathaim and Samuel's Ramathaim-Zophim seems relatively clear; odds are that is also the same as the town in Maccabees, but it would make no difference if it were not.

Moreover, if you think this prominent member of the Jerusalem council wholly dropping out of the narrative from all canonical works despite the reasons I raised is wholly satisfactory, thats fine too. And, yes, the vacuum of information on many of the figures of the gospels is the reason that so much apocryphal literature was composed about them (i.e. there existed no good, reliable information about their lives and later activities). Yet, this paucity of information doesnt allow me to accept what we have uncritically. So, while very early sources manufacture many, many details about JofA (because no one apparently knows anything about him other than the bare detail of his name and his function in the passion narrative) it seems to me accepting his historicity is euhemerism.

Calling it 'euhemerism' is again circular thinking, because there is nothing whatsoever in the original material of Mark and John to suggest that Joseph was intended as anything other than a normal man. Whether or not you believe he was an invented plot device, implying that he was mythical, that he was ever viewed as anything other than a normal man, is not a very persuasive attempt to create some rhetorical advantage. And which "very early sources" manufactured many, many details about Joseph? Do you mean late 2nd century? Given how little early material is preserved about even most of the twelve disciples the argument from silence about Joseph is rather unconvincing, and unless you have some "very early sources" prior to the Gospel of Nicodemus in mind, an attempt to imply that Christians immediately started making up stories about a mythical character is even less so.

As an aside, if you do think the interpretation of JofA is clever (sarcasm?), then you arent going to be persuaded by any theory of Simon of Cyrene either (however, I have come across a few).

Do they explain why his sons Alexander and Rufus are named? I'd certainly be interested in hearing them if so.

As for the passion narrative, I alluded to what I know of the construction of the core of the story and you replied that we would have to take any allusions on a case-by-case basis and defended the historicity of the lamentation. However, from Mk 15:24 to Mk 15:36 we have arguably five allusions in rapid succession. In chronological order they are:

Ps 22:18
Ps 22:8
Am 8:9
Ps 22:2
Ps 69:21

This process (adding OT allusion to the narrative) is also present in subsequent gospels (i.e. later authors add additional details to the scene culled from OT). The evangelists felt free to compose details borrowed from scripture.

The fourth one seems a bit strained, and the second one is found in Matthew but not explicitly in Mark. But far from suggesting an entirely fictitious story, multiple allusions to Psalm 22 would actually suggest that the author/s thought that they saw something profoundly important there. The effects of crucifixion - pierced hands and feet, strain on the joints, dehydration, humiliation and so on - are closely mirrored in the wording of the psalm. We can agree that Roman soldiers gambling over a peasant's clothes while on duty is almost certainly an invented detail, and Jesus' cry on the cross may or may not be; but either way, the fixation on that psalm and effort to explicitly draw readers' attention to it is not surprising and makes the most sense given that Jesus actually was crucified.

The Amos/darkened sun reference is an interesting one, because there actually was a three-hour solar eclipse in the middle east in 29CE, peaking at midday. It was in November and while the total eclipse would have been visible in Syria, Jerusalem would have seen only a partial eclipse. At its closest point to Jerusalem it would have lasted from around 10.30am to 1.20pm local time (UT +3hrs) with the total eclipse lasting less than two minutes at about 11.50am. Secular historians Phlegon and Thallus made reference to it, and to the earthquake which supposedly occurred in Nicaea at the same time, an additional detail appropriated by Matthew's gospel. So again, while the author of Mark/passion narrative has obviously taken some 'creative license' there, it seems to be misuse of historical information - perhaps even honest conflation of the two stories, though that'd be hard to suppose for a pre-44CE author - rather than a purely literary invention.

The Psalm 69 allusion is questionable. Put it this way: If you knew for a fact that someone really had offered Jesus some posca, would you then consider the comparison to Psalm 69 remarkable or some kind of prophetic fulfillment? If not (and I certainly wouldn't), then it is difficult to make the case that the author/s of Mark intended to write it that way! Of course here again Matthew does turn it into an explicit 'fulfillment,' adding reference to gall and making it mockery rather than a kindness, but that has no relevance to Mark's original story.

As for a viable approach for dating Mark, I do freely concede that some parts of it are earlier than others and, yes, I think the final redaction is later than mid 60s early 70s, but thats not what you are getting at. One think I keep in mind is what our earliest sources (e.g. the Pauline epistles and Clement of Rome) say (unambiguously) about a tradition you are positing was written in the 40s. From what I can recall, putting aside a general allusion to Christ crucified and of the details which are supposedly a guarantor of an early date are unmentioned. That is, unless we accept the reference to Pilate in 1 Timothy. I do not. In fact, 1 Timothy is spurious. To me, it makes a difference that our only early citation of detail from the passion is from a late, spurious letter. I think it should give one pause.

Take care,
TFV

The pastorals presumably are spurious, yes. But Paul offers quite a bit more than merely Jesus' crucifixion: He refers to Jesus' brothers (and James by name), that Jesus was betrayed, and that he shared a bread and wine ritual with his companions. And the resurrection story of course.

I consider the references to James from Paul and Josephus the most important evidence regarding Jesus because they are both first-hand (or if not first-hand, near enough to it in Josephus' case) and both from sources which cannot be considered pro-James. But given that, and that we have a few other bits of dubious information about James' brother from the letters of Paul, the probability that there was a written passion narrative circulating in Judea by the mid 40s CE or earlier is also very important, and not just in confirming some of those Pauline details. Possibly the most significant historical information in the passion narrative - by the notable absence of his name and the anonymity of the person who assaulted his servant - is that it was not primarily the Romans but the high priest himself who pushed for Jesus' execution.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 151 by Mithrae]

So, once again, one of the ultimate truths, is boiled down to a pun or word game or definition.
This happens so often in Biblical studies, it is a wonder folks don't become more suspicious.

I mean, we have all the names of angels meaning something quite plain in Phoenician, yet impossible things in Hebrew.
Nephilim, is quite complicated and impossible in Hebrew, but is quite plain in Greek - love child.

Now Joseph of Arimathea, a likely ficticious person with a name that means something in Greek, and is an abstract in Hebrew.

It seems there is a clue in all this if only folks would get one.

Perhaps Mith would gain some edification by recounting what language the NT was written in? Or having some understanding that its grammar rules would allow its being understood in Greek perfectly well one way, and not this other one.

[marco]

Many people insist that Jesus was a historical person.

So does this "criterion of embarrassment" lend authenticity to the story of Jesus making him more likely to be historical?

Crucifixion was certainly regarded as a degrading punishment. We have:

"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, EVEN the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8

The testimony of the respected Roman historian Tacitus seems conclusive:

" auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat" (the holder of that name, Christ, in the reign of Tiberius had suffered the extreme penalty through the governor Pontius Pilate.)

This would have been crucifixion since Christ had no Roman citizen privileges. Tacitus had ready access, though his official position, to past records.

The embarrassment idea is an interesting notion but there's too much weight of evidence for us to deny Christ was crucified.

[Jagella]

[Replying to marco]

The embarrassment idea is an interesting notion but there's too much weight of evidence for us to deny Christ was crucified.

Aside from our knowing that the Romans crucified Jews, what evidence do we have for the crucifixion of Jesus?

[tfvespasianus]

But Paul offers quite a bit more than merely Jesus' crucifixion: He refers to Jesus' brothers (and James by name),

I may have a remark or two, but briefly where does Paul do this? I am unaware of him citing that Jesus had additional brothers. Or, more properly, that there were other 'brothers of the Lord' as Paul never says 'the brother of Jesus'. As an aside, the gospel of Mark itself, which you are positing as very early, never refers to James 'the brother of the Lord' or 'James the brother of Jesus'. If again we are go to the well of ad hoc to explain this away, that's fine. However, if James is the lynch pin in this paradigm of historicity then the omission is at least somewhat inexplicable.

take care,
TFV

[Mithrae]

Crucifixion was certainly regarded as a degrading punishment. We have:
"And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, EVEN the death of the cross." Philippians 2:8

I'd forgotten that one! There's also "we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness" in 1 Corinthians 1.

###

But Paul offers quite a bit more than merely Jesus' crucifixion: He refers to Jesus' brothers (and James by name),

I may have a remark or two, but briefly where does Paul do this? I am unaware of him citing that Jesus had additional brothers. Or, more properly, that there were other 'brothers of the Lord' as Paul never says 'the brother of Jesus'. As an aside, the gospel of Mark itself, which you are positing as very early, never refers to James 'the brother of the Lord' or 'James the brother of Jesus'. If again we are go to the well of ad hoc to explain this away, that's fine. However, if James is the lynch pin in this paradigm of historicity then the omission is at least somewhat inexplicable.

take care,
TFV

Paul's other reference to Jesus' brothers is in 1 Corinthians:

• Galatians 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .
  19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lords brother.
  
  1 Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? . . . .
  5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Mark does introduce Jesus' brothers early in his gospel, and the passion narrative (which is the section that seems to be earlier material) also identifies two of them. Of particular note is the fact that "James the Less" or 'the younger' seemingly distinguishes Jesus' brother from another prominent James, most likely James of Zebedee who died in the mid 40s:

• Mark 6:3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us? So they were offended at Him.
  
  Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome. . . .
  
  Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses observed where He was laid. . . .
  
  Mark 16:1 Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him.

Identifying Mary first as the mother of James and Joseph, and then omitting one son in each subsequent reference suggests an intention to indicate that Mary also had other sons not named, even if that were not made explicit in chapter 6. But on that note, I find it quite interesting that Mary's role as Jesus' mother is distinctly downplayed (both here and in John 19:25-27). One possible explanation is that the view that Jesus was the Son of God in a unique and special sense existed very early on, so rather than Mary being 'merely' the mother of Christ the earliest Christians wanted to forestall or refute any notion of her being a bride (or mother) of God. That also runs contrary to the Christ myth theory, since if he were originally viewed as a mythical or heavenly being we'd expect either no mention of a mother at all, or a mythology of a heavenly mother, or a later effort to 'historicize' Jesus by emphasising an earthly mother: Instead this earliest account seems to be downplaying historical fact.

[liamconnor]

The demand is ridiculous.




The burden of proof rests on those who say that Jesus was not crucified. There is no alternative from history.

If the only point of this OP is that one criterion, that of "embarrassment" by itself is not insufficient, well, okay. The historicity of the crucifixion has more than the criterion of embarrassment. That is simply a counter which, for some reason, good historians have been forced to present to hyperskeptics.

All sources point to Jesus being crucified.

Is all you have the alternative question, "Well, maybe he wasn't"? Why is that question more powerful than the only testimony from the contemporary past? Since when are questions so powerful?

[Willum]

OK, I read quite a few pages of this post, and saw nothing conclusive.

My I recommend discussing this?

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/07/ ... crucified/

[marco]

Aside from our knowing that the Romans crucified Jews, what evidence do we have for the crucifixion of Jesus?

When I read Tacitus on his father- in- law Agricola I accept what he says, and there's evidence here in Britain of Agricola's legacy. If Tacitus makes reference to the crucifixion of Christ, it's reasonable to assume Christ was crucified. He wasn't shot.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 159 by marco]

When I read Tacitus on his father- in- law Agricola I accept what he says, and there's evidence here in Britain of Agricola's legacy. If Tacitus makes reference to the crucifixion of Christ, it's reasonable to assume Christ was crucified. He wasn't shot.

Where did Tacitus get his information about the crucifixion? If it's from Christians, then it doesn't count as corroboration. In that case his word would be no better than the word of the Christians. I can make a reference to the crucifixion; does that then make the crucifixion likely to be historical?

Citing references to the events that allegedly occurred in Jesus life doesn't prove much except that Christian beliefs became well known. Many people who claim that Jesus really lived keep making that mistake.