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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 137 by Mithrae]

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.

You have a source on Lazarus?
Gimme, gimme!

As you know, the lack of biography and testament of the man back from the dead is a concern of mine!

I would like to know what it was like to be dead.

Or are yo just saying there was a preacher named Lazarus, to create a false argument for the Biblical Lazarus?

If so, I will be disappointed.

[paarsurrey1]

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.

Please quote from the OT the period Jonah was in the belly of the fish.
Please quote from the NT the period Jesus was on the Cross. Will one, please?
Regards

[tfvespasianus]

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.

Well, putting aside that I don't think that's more persuasive than the reasons to accept JoA as a 'narrative man', any text that does contain aspiration is late (all early texts are uncial) and, moreover, I don't think aspiration makes the situation that much better as many names are aspirated. In any case, it strikes me as ad hoc given that the claim was that the author was well-acquainted with the region.

take care,
TFV

[Willum]

[Replying to post 142 by paarsurrey1]

You know, I am not sure that those are valid requests:
If he is wrong, it is up to you to examine the Bible, and demonstrate it.
Otherwise, I have no reason to suspect it...

Howl long was Jonah in the belly of a whale?

three days
But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Jonah - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 144 by Willum]

If one is a Christian who has read the Bible, one may give one's input, please.
What is invalid in my requests, please, just tell me to correct my post?
Regards

[Mithrae]

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.

Well, putting aside that I don't think that's more persuasive than the reasons to accept JoA as a 'narrative man', any text that does contain aspiration is late (all early texts are uncial) and, moreover, I don't think aspiration makes the situation that much better as many names are aspirated. In any case, it strikes me as ad hoc given that the claim was that the author was well-acquainted with the region.

take care,
TFV

The claim was that use of town names like Magdala and [ha-Ramathaim] implies an original context in which those were useful identifiers, which would not have been likely for someone writing in Greek far from Judea in the late 60s CE (or later). Speculating that Joseph was a 'narrative man' wouldn't necessarily change that point to begin with; he'd still be a narrative man who was 'historicized' by reference to an obscure Judean town. And even if that were not the case, we'd still have Mary Magdalene. And if there's a clever theory about Mary Magdalene too, there's still all the other points evidencing a pre-Markan passion narrative.

I'm happy to discuss any particular point in detail, but could you first clarify whether you agree or disagree with the passion narrative theory? And if you disagree, could you provide a quick bullet point or paragraphed list of responses to as many of the points I highlighted as you can? We can take them one at a time if you'd like, but I don't like getting bogged down in minutiae at the expense of the main point of discussion

[tfvespasianus]

The claim was that use of town names like Magdala and [ha-Ramathaim] implies an original context in which those were useful identifiers, which would not have been likely for someone writing in Greek far from Judea in the late 60s CE (or later). Speculating that Joseph was a 'narrative man' wouldn't necessarily change that point to begin with; he'd still be a narrative man who was 'historicized' by reference to an obscure Judean town.

Hand-waving about the character of JofA and falling back on Mary Magdalene strikes me as a tendency. I emphasize the JofA bit largely because its fresh in my mind (I compose most things I write here extemporaneously), but also because its an example the that stands for a general pattern, the strength of arguments that posit literary artifice over historical record (or verbatim dictation of apostolic memory) as the reason for textual details.

So, with respect to JofA we have an argument that it is an off-hand reference to a lexically similar Samaritan (!) town (I checked my NRSV version of Maccabees cited and they the names are similar and not the same; I further would posit that both are composed in Greek and I dont feel its necessary to check the manuscript evidence as that would be quite a rabbit hole AND its an aside from the Critical arguments in any case). On the other we have a case for this inexplicable reference that is rooted in text criticism of the narrative that attempts to explain the moniker in context of the story. We can decide which one we find more persuasive, but I personally dont think JofA is any more historical and just happened to be named just so than I feel the demoniac just happened to be named Legion because thats what his name was. As for Mary Magdalene, I would have to consult my library at home, but I seem to recall a theory that moniker has something to do with hair-dresser which was a colloquial reference to a prostitute, but my recollection of the details of this interpretation is insufficient to own that theory. Nonetheless, I would tentatively guess that the case for trivial historical detail is less supported than a critical explanation.

With respect to an early date for (some?) parts of Mark, I dont think the position is very tenable and I am hesitant to re-litigate what is basically a question of apostolic authorship (in the case of Mark that being it is a product of the reminiscence of Peter via amanuensis per Papias as cited by Eusebius). I dont think these claims are persuasive, but I do grant that the question is complex. I know there are able apologists that make the case on this forum upholding their view and, moreover, that these type of views are mirrored in conservative scholarship. However, I think in the end we simply operate in different paradigms. In Mark, I see a work of immense literary skill rather than a dictation of reminiscence. Moreover, I think the case for early composition is undermined by documentary evidence (e.g. the first unambiguous citation of the gospel itself (very late) and evidence from the earliest patristic sources and their familiarity with details from the gospels). So, while we can certainly fashion a case that some portion of the gospel is in fact early, briefly (I know this has not been exceptionally brief), I think thats somewhat an exercise in question-begging (i.e. some portions of it must be exceptionally early).

Take care,
TFV

[Mithrae]

The claim was that use of town names like Magdala and [ha-Ramathaim] implies an original context in which those were useful identifiers, which would not have been likely for someone writing in Greek far from Judea in the late 60s CE (or later). Speculating that Joseph was a 'narrative man' wouldn't necessarily change that point to begin with; he'd still be a narrative man who was 'historicized' by reference to an obscure Judean town.

Hand-waving about the character of JofA and falling back on Mary Magdalene strikes me as a tendency. I emphasize the JofA bit largely because its fresh in my mind (I compose most things I write here extemporaneously), but also because its an example the that stands for a general pattern, the strength of arguments that posit literary artifice over historical record (or verbatim dictation of apostolic memory) as the reason for textual details.

So, with respect to JofA we have an argument that it is an off-hand reference to a lexically similar Samaritan (!) town (I checked my NRSV version of Maccabees cited and they the names are similar and not the same; I further would posit that both are composed in Greek and I dont feel its necessary to check the manuscript evidence as that would be quite a rabbit hole AND its an aside from the Critical arguments in any case). On the other we have a case for this inexplicable reference that is rooted in text criticism of the narrative that attempts to explain the moniker in context of the story.

You're arguing in circles there; assuming that it is an "inexplicable reference" which needs a text-critical explanation, when in fact it is not at all unusual that there should be a fellow from ha-Ramathaim there in Jerusalem. The only real substance, such as it is, is the argument from silence which supposes something unusual about the absence of further reference to Joseph. But there are many prominent figures who are only named once or twice in the surviving remnants of earliest Christian writings: Jesus' younger brothers Joseph, Judas and Simon; Simon of Cyrene who carried his cross (though no doubt there is a clever theory for him too); and most of the twelve disciples, for crying out loud! There is simply no good reason to expect surviving early follow-up references to all of these figures, nor for the fellow who buried Jesus.

We can decide which one we find more persuasive, but I personally dont think JofA is any more historical and just happened to be named just so than I feel the demoniac just happened to be named Legion because thats what his name was. As for Mary Magdalene, I would have to consult my library at home, but I seem to recall a theory that moniker has something to do with hair-dresser which was a colloquial reference to a prostitute, but my recollection of the details of this interpretation is insufficient to own that theory. Nonetheless, I would tentatively guess that the case for trivial historical detail is less supported than a critical explanation.

And yet Magdala was even more unambiguously a place name. The 'hair-dresser' notion apparently comes from an 11th century(!) Jewish commentary:
"the Midrash HaGadol (Deut. 13:7) states that the mother of Jesus was named "Miriam Magdala Nishaia" (Mary Magdalene), which name, according to the 11th-century Talmudic exegete, Rashi, meant "Mary, the Braider of women's hair." "

Most likely that was based on the earlier Christian notions that Mary had been a prostitute, based on the inauthentic claim that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her (Mark 16:9) and presumably conflation between Mary of Bethany in John 11:1-2 and the prostitute who poured perfume on Jesus' feet in Luke. In other words, it's about as far-fetched a theory as I can imagine.

With respect to an early date for (some?) parts of Mark, I dont think the position is very tenable and I am hesitant to re-litigate what is basically a question of apostolic authorship (in the case of Mark that being it is a product of the reminiscence of Peter via amanuensis per Papias as cited by Eusebius). I dont think these claims are persuasive, but I do grant that the question is complex. I know there are able apologists that make the case on this forum upholding their view and, moreover, that these type of views are mirrored in conservative scholarship. However, I think in the end we simply operate in different paradigms. In Mark, I see a work of immense literary skill rather than a dictation of reminiscence. Moreover, I think the case for early composition is undermined by documentary evidence (e.g. the first unambiguous citation of the gospel itself (very late) and evidence from the earliest patristic sources and their familiarity with details from the gospels). So, while we can certainly fashion a case that some portion of the gospel is in fact early, briefly (I know this has not been exceptionally brief), I think thats somewhat an exercise in question-begging (i.e. some portions of it must be exceptionally early).

Take care,
TFV

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by early composition vis a vis documentary evidence and patristic tradition - are you suggesting that canonical Mark was written even later than the late 60s/70s CE? Even if so, it wouldn't change the evidence regarding an earlier passion narrative.

[tfvespasianus]

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. 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. 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).

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.

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

[paarsurrey1]

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?

The early Christians may have made up the crucifixion

The story of Jesus' resurrection from the literal or clinically dead was made-up or fabricated by Paul and the Church and Paul's followers accepted it on blind-faith, please.
Regards