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]

Since Historia seems to be temporarily absent, I may as well revisit this post which I skipped in the midst of responses to Alwayson, TFVespasianus and Willum.

It does seem that the discussion itself has lost a bit of focus (which is fine as discussion neednt be laser-focused) and we find ourselves in eddies of varying degrees of relevance. Nonetheless, I would like to say as an aside that I do always enjoy historias contributions and would agree that his statements deserve consideration. Additionally, Mithrae has made serious and detailed contributions.

However, it occurs to me that if we are discussing The Crucifixion and whether it is history we are in a sense talking about the historicity of the Passion narrative. As is well documented, the Passion narrative is largely a pastiche of OT passages literarily formed into something like a dramatic cento. On my previous religious discussion site, I had posited in an exchange with a very learned apologist that the sheer volume of allusions to the Psalms and prophets in the narrative leads to two possibilities: either there is literary artifice at work in the narrative OR the god of the bible intervened in human history to cause events to transpire just so. He accepts the latter, but one has to take a side.

Take care,
TFV

I've always found your comments interesting and informed I'm not sure how much of the early parts of the thread you read, but my first response to the thread topic was primarily concerned with the theory of a written passion narrative underlying the final chapters of Mark's gospel which probably originated in Jerusalem/Judea within 15 years of the events described there. Obviously a hypothesis regarding a non-extant work can't be verified with certainty, but the evidence does seem quite compelling. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

Inasmuch as parallels to the Tanakh exist, we might certainly suppose that some of them may have been created or embellished in the retelling or writing of the stories. On a case by case basis of course; for example Jesus' quotation of the Psalms on the cross could just as easily have been his own intention to bring significance to his death as his followers'! But if such a written narrative actually did circulate so close in time and space to the event - including apparent features such as identity protection for others involved - it would be extremely difficult to suppose that in general it was not "based on a true story."

There is also compelling evidence that the content in the last few chapters of Mark comes primarily from an early written 'passion narrative':
> More new people are identified in these chapters than anywhere else in the gospels besides the naming of the Twelve (Pilate, Barabbas, Simon of Cyrene - and his sons Alexander and Rufus! - Mary Magdalene, Salome, Joseph of Arimathea) a level of detail and implied relevance to those names not found elsewhere
> The use of backwater town names like Magdala and Arimathea to identify people implies familiarity with those places (14:10, 14:67, 14:70, 15:21, 15:40, 15:43)
> Unlike all other gospels and contrary to the pattern above, in Mark "the high priest" is not explicitly named, suggesting the story was circulated within his sphere of influence (he died c.37CE) or at least his family's influence (ie. Judea before the revolt)
> The two anonymous believers mentioned in the story - the bystander who cuts off the ear of the high priest's slave with a sword (Mk 14:47) and a young man who escapes arrest by running away (Mk 14:51-52) - suggests protection of their identities, which would be unnecessary in a later work
> In Mark and later Matthew and Luke Jesus eats the Passover meal with his disciples and was killed on the feast's first day (the day considered to start in the evening and end at sunset), but there are indications of an underlying story in which (like John) he was killed on the Preparation day before the feast; Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the country, implying work which could not be done on Passover; Jesus' burial is said to be on Preparation day (with a parenthetical clause making it preparation for the Sabbath) and Joseph hurries to get the burial done before evening, which makes no sense if it was already Passover; Jesus' trial itself could not have happened on the day of Passover, and if it actually had Mark surely would noted the priests' hypocrisy, so more likely that was an inadvertent consequence of the new chronology

In dating that earlier 'passion narrative' there are two distinct elements which strongly suggest that it was circulated in Judea prior to 44CE:
- The use of "James the younger" to identify Jesus' brother (Mark 15:40; cf 6:3) suggests a common term distinguishing him from James son of Zebedee who died in the mid 40s (Acts 12:2), and
- "the text speaks quite simply of 'the rebels,' who were taken prisoner during 'the insurrection' (15:7) . . . . We can only suppose that the text was composed before the next great uprising; after that, the author would have 'historicized' the account by distinguishing the previous 'stasis' from the more recent one. The next unrest with bloody clashes that struck Jerusalem was the apperance of Theudas under Cuspius Fadus (44-45 C.E.; cf. Acts 5:36, Ant. 20.97-98)."

[Willum]

OK, resolved then:

Since, despite claims to the contrary, the Jews and Romans kept decent records of the time, it is reasonable to expect that an extraordinary spectacle as Jesus and his crucifixion would be well documented by all parties.

It would certainly be something that Biblical scholars would produce triumphantly, if it existed.
So, based on the inability of debaters to derive other paths forward, and a lack of profound evidence, as well as no other evidence of Jesus' life:

Lazarus, carpenter tables, memorials and tabloids, whereas less prominent figures do have such legacy, we must conclude Jesus was a fiction.

Now some of you will say: Absence of evidence does not prove evidence of absence.
If absence of evidence does not prove evidence of absence, then what does it prove?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 132 by Willum]

You may be interested in some of these earlier comments in the discussion:

And assuming objectivity on your part, you would be as or more underwhelmed by, and assume an equal or greater probability that the likes of Pythagoras and Socrates also did not exist. Busts and coins and unambiguous archaeological evidence are left behind by kings - sometimes - but rarely by sages and teachers. As I said, it is in terms of that comparison of apples to apples that the evidence regarding Jesus' existence is extremely strong.

Probably the most perfect figure for comparison against Jesus is Hillel the Elder: A Jewish teacher (like Jesus) who died in the early first century in Jerusalem (like Jesus) and was hugely influential in one of the two main directions Judaism took after the temple's destruction (like Jesus). In fact as head of the Sanhedrin Hillel would have been far more important in his own lifetime than Jesus ever was in his:
[Quotation removed for brevity]

Yet for all that, the evidence for Hillel's existence and deeds is quite literally pathetically weak compared to the evidence for Jesus. Whereas Josephus mentions the death of Jesus' brother James - admittedly more by coincidence than anything else - he doesn't mention Hillel at all:
[Quotation removed for brevity]

So while there are a few credentialed historians out there who've made a name for themselves and garnered some book sales by advancing the notion that Jesus did not exist, and perhaps have even managed to convince themselves of that, the reality is that the kind of approach which must be used to reach that conclusion would wipe out a substantial minority if not a majority of ancient history as we know it.

[A to K of sources of evidence regarding Jesus]

Maybe someone can let me know if I've forgotten anything. Only the first six or seven points really have much value of course, but even the later ones contribute to our understanding. Anyone is welcome to simply shake their head and say "Nuh uh, not good enough" of course, but that would simply be expressing an opinion on what they want to see, rather than any kind of reasonable evaluation of what we should expect to see. The comparison with other ancient teachers highlights the kind of evidence we should be expecting, and while there may be some ancient teachers for whom the evidence is stronger, Jesus really holds up very nicely in that field.

As for those who insist it's just not good enough, it's worth noting that Creationists take a similar stance regarding the paucity of evidence remaining in the fossil record

[Willum]

[Replying to post 133 by Mithrae]

If you say so, I suppose it is what you absolutely MUST believe to keep faith alive, however:

Pythagoras gave us the Pythagorean Theorem, and more. Things we can go out, use and prove. Many people have there name scratched out in a census. Folks recorded as being executed.

Jesus don't.

I can't got out and use my Jesus Theorem to heal someone, despite claims made about faith, and except for disputed works, Jesus is nowhere.
And so is his carpentry.
His miracle of Lazarus.

Right out there with the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandments, and any other artifact that doesn't exist from the Bible.

Your point is non-sequitur.

[tfvespasianus]

> The use of backwater town names like Magdala and Arimathea to identify people implies familiarity with those places (14:10, 14:67, 14:70, 15:21, 15:40, 15:43)

This essentially apologetic argument for historicity surprises me every time that I see it (i.e. Arimathea is obscure hence it must be an authentic detail). It is not that it is obscure, but rather it is otherwise unattested and that it serves a particular function in the narrative. I will quote myself from a previous post on this forum:

It ought to be in no way astonishing that scholars and layman alike doubt the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea. That is, it has long been argued that this figure serves a literary function rather than being part of the historical record. The reasons for this are rooted in a reasonably inferred possibility of literary artifice coupled with the inexplicable details of the story itself.

First, there is the matter of literary artifice. The case rests on more than the fact that Arimathea is unknown/unattested. It is that this unattested name could be understood as follows: Ari- is a standard Greek prefix meaning best, math- is the root of words such as teaching and disciple among other (e.g. math", math"t"s, math"ma), and aia is a standard suffix for Greek place names. Thus, we have an appellation of that could be construed as something like Joe from Best-Disciple-Town. Moreover, the description of Joseph as a prominent council member is actually a pun in Greek; eusch"mon bouleut"s can also mean something like one who makes good decisions. So, our character naturally makes a good decision, possibly because, in contrast to the behavior of the actual disciples, he is from best disciple town. Additionally, this character is another example of part of the argument for Markan priority due to the storys expansion for Mark wherein Joseph carries out what he does either because of religious duty/piety to Matthews (and Johns) assertion that he was a convert and Luke positing that he was sympathetic to the Jesus movement.

Even if we grant that these literary elements could be simply coincidence, it is not simply that the personage of JoA is unattested elsewhere, it is also that he drops out of the narrative completely once his function in the narrative is completed. This prominent council member that Matthew and John name as a convert to Christianity is nowhere to be found in Acts or even the remainder of the narrative where he is introduced. He simply disappears. And as a matter of historical fact, grave robbing was a capital offense and JoA was the last known person to be in possession of the body of Jesus. Yet " despite the narrative making it clear that people are running around town talking about an empty tomb, the Romans never question JoA (or at least it was not recorded " which would be fairly inexplicable). Much like the case of disciples themselves, the Romans simply do not care that someone has either stolen a body or that someone if alleged to have otherwise escaped Roman justice " their cares are portrayed as being elsewhere.

Take care,
TFV

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 129 by Mithrae]

It might be?

Yes. Attempting to demonstrate the existence of obscure figures in remote antiquity is tricky business. You need to understate that fact.

How do you decide whether or not it is a good argument for the historicity of Ananias?

You should know your sources. You need to know if those sources are trustworthy. If the sources are biased toward the existence of Ananias, then they may be lying about his existence. In my argument that you borrowed, there is no known bias in the sources. Nobody, as far as I know, wants him to exist. There is no bias in anybody wanting the Roman occupation to have happened. Nobody dearly hopes that the Romans crucified Jews for sedition. Nobody's religion is founded on the hope that apocalyptic preachers wandered the countryside of Galilee.

The New Testament, by contrast, is biased. Its writers wanted Jesus to have existed. They then would be more likely to have lied.

It seems obvious that your argument does rely on the same evidence - the reports by Paul, Josephus, Mark etc....

Yet more sloppy logic! My argument does not rest on those reports. Do you honestly think that we must rely on Paul to know that Jews were crucified by Romans?

Mith, I think that's enough for me. Please post sensible arguments.

[Mithrae]

It seems obvious that your argument does rely on the same evidence - the reports by Paul, Josephus, Mark etc. - to confirm the existence of a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Jesus (in contrast to the existence of a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Ananias).

Yet more sloppy logic! My argument does not rest on those reports. Do you honestly think that we must rely on Paul to know that Jews were crucified by Romans?

Mith, I think that's enough for me. Please post sensible arguments.

So just going through some of the most common names, we have
- an argument for a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Ananias,
- an argument for a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Lazarus,
- an argument for a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Jesus,
- an argument for a 1st century crucified Jewish apocalyptic preacher/miracle worker named Simeon and so on.

In your own words, this argument "has the advantage of being backed up by solid evidence, has no faulty logic or manufactured probabilities, and does not rely on the word of" Paul, Josephus, Mark and so on. And evidently you stand by your belief that other arguments are based on sloppy logic and weak evidence, but on the basis of your argument you think there is a roughly even, 50/50 plausibility of [insert name here] existing.

I think you're right, that is enough. I really cannot fathom what your obsession with insulting historians and demonizing 1st century sources may be, but if you're going to keep insisting that you don't need those sources for a valid conclusion there really is no reasoning with you

[Mithrae]

> The use of backwater town names like Magdala and Arimathea to identify people implies familiarity with those places (14:10, 14:67, 14:70, 15:21, 15:40, 15:43)

This essentially apologetic argument for historicity surprises me every time that I see it (i.e. Arimathea is obscure hence it must be an authentic detail). It is not that it is obscure, but rather it is otherwise unattested and that it serves a particular function in the narrative. I will quote myself from a previous post on this forum:

It ought to be in no way astonishing that scholars and layman alike doubt the historicity of Joseph of Arimathea. That is, it has long been argued that this figure serves a literary function rather than being part of the historical record. The reasons for this are rooted in a reasonably inferred possibility of literary artifice coupled with the inexplicable details of the story itself.

First, there is the matter of literary artifice. The case rests on more than the fact that Arimathea is unknown/unattested. It is that this unattested name could be understood as follows: Ari- is a standard Greek prefix meaning best, math- is the root of words such as teaching and disciple among other (e.g. math", math"t"s, math"ma), and aia is a standard suffix for Greek place names. Thus, we have an appellation of that could be construed as something like Joe from Best-Disciple-Town. Moreover, the description of Joseph as a prominent council member is actually a pun in Greek; eusch"mon bouleut"s can also mean something like one who makes good decisions. So, our character naturally makes a good decision, possibly because, in contrast to the behavior of the actual disciples, he is from best disciple town. Additionally, this character is another example of part of the argument for Markan priority due to the storys expansion for Mark wherein Joseph carries out what he does either because of religious duty/piety to Matthews (and Johns) assertion that he was a convert and Luke positing that he was sympathetic to the Jesus movement.

Even if we grant that these literary elements could be simply coincidence, it is not simply that the personage of JoA is unattested elsewhere, it is also that he drops out of the narrative completely once his function in the narrative is completed. This prominent council member that Matthew and John name as a convert to Christianity is nowhere to be found in Acts or even the remainder of the narrative where he is introduced. He simply disappears. And as a matter of historical fact, grave robbing was a capital offense and JoA was the last known person to be in possession of the body of Jesus. Yet " despite the narrative making it clear that people are running around town talking about an empty tomb, the Romans never question JoA (or at least it was not recorded " which would be fairly inexplicable). Much like the case of disciples themselves, the Romans simply do not care that someone has either stolen a body or that someone if alleged to have otherwise escaped Roman justice " their cares are portrayed as being elsewhere.

Take care,
TFV

Wikipedia notes that

• In most of the Koine Greek New Testament texts, the Greek word for Arimathea has a rough breathing mark ( ) and this indicates aspiration (the presence of an /h/ sound) on the first alpha of Arimathea. Consequently, the place of Joseph's origin should be pronounced "Harimathea". That would correspond to Hebrew ha-ramathaim, with the initial heh (") forming the definite Hebrew article ha-.

A better-known example of this would be Armageddon = Har-Megiddo. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Ramah or Ha-Ramah or Ha-Ramathaim-Zophim was

• (4) The hometown of Samuel (I Sam. 1:1; as Ramathaim-Zophim) and possibly the residence of Deborah (Judg. 4:5). There Samuel judged Israel (I Sam. 7:17; 8:4) and was later buried (I Sam. 25:1; 28:3); his school of prophets was located in Naioth in Ramah (I Sam. 19:22"24). In the Septuagint, it is identified with ha-Ramatha or Arimathea, which is described in I Maccabees 11:34 as the headquarters of a Samaritan toparchy transferred to Judea in 145 B.C.E.; this place was the home town of Joseph, a Jerusalem councilor, in whose tomb Jesus was buried (Matt. 27:57, et al.). It was called Remphthis by Eusebius (Onom. 144:28) and is the present-day Rantis, northeast of Lydda.

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the theory of a pre-Markan passion narrative?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 122 by paarsurrey1]

But it does not fulfill the Sign of Jonah that was to be shown to the Judaism people, as promised to them by Jesus. Jonah went in the belly of the fish alive, Jonay remained alive in the belly of the fish, Jonah did not die in the belly of fish, rather Jonah was in the near-dead position in the belly of the fish. Jonah came out of the fish alive. If Jesus died on the Cross, then the "Sign of Jonah" becomes unfulfilled in Jesus. It does not remain the greatest sign of Jesus.Right, please? Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct in that the Jonah story does not say that Jonah ever died in the belly of the great fish or the whale. Nevertheless, Jesus is quoted as comparing his death and resurrection to Jonah in the whale. Obviously, the story of Jesus' death and resurrection need not be identical to the story of Jonah, just similar. So the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus claiming that Jonah's three days in the whale predicts Jesus' three days in "the heart of the earth." Many Christians therefore see Jesus' death and resurrection as a "fulfillment" of Jonah even though Jonah didn't die in the whale.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the New Testament writers, especially the writer of Matthew, believed that Jesus was predicted in various passages in the Old Testament. This belief may have served as a reason why the crucifixion story may have been made up to make Jesus' life appear to fulfill prophecy.

Nevertheless, Jesus is quoted as comparing his death and resurrection to Jonah in the whale. Obviously, the story of Jesus' death and resurrection need not be identical to the story of Jonah, just similar.

Jesus named Jonah's case for death and resurrection being identical and similar. If there is not identicalness in both death and resurrection there is no meaningful similarity in Jonah and Jesus' events. The period of days has no significance, at all, one should realize. It is not the essence of the stories/events. Right , please?
Regards

[McCulloch]

Jesus named Jonah's case for death and resurrection being identical and similar. If there is not identicalness in both death and resurrection there is no meaningful similarity in Jonah and Jesus' events. The period of days has no significance, at all, one should realize. It is not the essence of the stories/events. Right , please?
Regards

I find it difficult to see how you come to this conclusion.

But He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

Jesus himself repeated the detail of the specific length of time.