Best evidence for a historical Joshua ben Joseph

[Lion IRC]

Either the sequence of events described in GMark (and its copycats) are true accounts of events that happened (allowing for minor details to be incorrect due to human tendency not to remember exactly what happened) or they are mythology interwoven into a specific time period and place.

That’s a false dichotomy, and somewhat incredible that that should even need to be pointed out to you.

And citing a known fictional character, especially a modern one, is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

Well, ok, for making hypothetical comparisons, possibly, but not to make claims that this figure was such. That’s just presumptuous. Even when making comparisons we should be careful to try to compare like with like as much as possible, and/or with context in mind. Comparisons only have limited value anyway, but comparisons with Rhett Butler are almost completely useless.

It certainly is a false dichotomy.

Jesus' feeding loaves and fishes to the multitudes can be accepted as an historical event - and even something of a 'secular' miracle in that so many really hungry people would altruistically share a small amount of food and afterwards describe themselves as having eaten their fill - without violating any truth or fiction dichotomy.

The Gospel is full of supernatural events which certain liberal 'Christians' somehow manage to harmonise with their practically godless religion.

 

[skepticalbip]

Either the sequence of events described in GMark (and its copycats) are true accounts of events that happened (allowing for minor details to be incorrect due to human tendency not to remember exactly what happened) or they are mythology interwoven into a specific time period and place.

That’s a false dichotomy, and somewhat incredible that that should even need to be pointed out to you.

And citing a known fictional character, especially a modern one, is a terrible idea, for a number of reasons.

Well, ok, for making hypothetical comparisons, possibly, but not to make claims that this figure was such. That’s just presumptuous. Even when making comparisons we should be careful to try to compare like with like as much as possible, and/or with context in mind. Comparisons only have limited value anyway, but comparisons with Rhett Butler are almost completely useless.

It certainly is a false dichotomy.

Jesus' feeding loaves and fishes to the multitudes can be accepted as an historical event - and even something of a 'secular' miracle in that so many really hungry people would altruistically share a small amount of food and afterwards describe themselves as having eaten their fill - without violating any truth or fiction dichotomy.

The Gospel is full of supernatural events which certain liberal 'Christians' somehow manage to harmonise with their practically godless religion.

That is some really weird hand waving. The story of the loaves and fishes was told as proof that Jesus performed miracles. And you explain it by saying it wasn't a miracle, that the crowd merely pretended to be filled with their miniscule portion. You didn't however explain how the remaining uneaten scraps of the original five small loaves filled twelve baskets.

I think you miss the point that the writers of the gospels were trying to make in telling tall tales of the supposed miracles. If Jesus didn't perform miracles then he wouldn't be the messiah. They needed to have people believe that Jesus performed the miracles so they would believe he was a god.

Or are you now joining most of us on this site and now think that, if there was a real person, then he was only one of many street preachers during that time and all the stories in the Bible are fabricated mythology?

 

[lpetrich]

Jesus' feeding loaves and fishes to the multitudes can be accepted as an historical event - and even something of a 'secular' miracle in that so many really hungry people would altruistically share a small amount of food and afterwards describe themselves as having eaten their fill - without violating any truth or fiction dichotomy.

Meaning that this miracle was not really a miracle.

The Gospel is full of supernatural events which certain liberal 'Christians' somehow manage to harmonise with their practically godless religion.

"Practically godless"???

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It certainly is a false dichotomy.

Jesus' feeding loaves and fishes to the multitudes can be accepted as an historical event - and even something of a 'secular' miracle in that so many really hungry people would altruistically share a small amount of food and afterwards describe themselves as having eaten their fill - without violating any truth or fiction dichotomy.

The Gospel is full of supernatural events which certain liberal 'Christians' somehow manage to harmonise with their practically godless religion.

That is some really weird hand waving. The story of the loaves and fishes was told as proof that Jesus performed miracles. And you explain it by saying it wasn't a miracle, that the crowd merely pretended to be filled with their miniscule portion. You didn't however explain how the remaining uneaten scraps of the original five small loaves filled twelve baskets.

I think you miss the point that the writers of the gospels were trying to make in telling tall tales of the supposed miracles. If Jesus didn't perform miracles then he wouldn't be the messiah. They needed to have people believe that Jesus performed the miracles so they would believe he was a god.

Or are you now joining most of us on this site and now think that, if there was a real person, then he was only one of many street preachers during that time and all the stories in the Bible are fabricated mythology?

No, he's saying the miracles happened. He's criticizing those who deny it but call themselves "Christians" and/or those who call them so. But he is also apparently saying that a person can accept the events as historical without believing they were miraculous (which doesn't sound right if he's criticizing the interpretations in question, but maybe he can clarify that).

 

[Lion IRC]

It certainly is a false dichotomy.

Jesus' feeding loaves and fishes to the multitudes can be accepted as an historical event - and even something of a 'secular' miracle in that so many really hungry people would altruistically share a small amount of food and afterwards describe themselves as having eaten their fill - without violating any truth or fiction dichotomy.

The Gospel is full of supernatural events which certain liberal 'Christians' somehow manage to harmonise with their practically godless religion.

That is some really weird hand waving. The story of the loaves and fishes was told as proof that Jesus performed miracles. And you explain it by saying it wasn't a miracle,

Certainly not. i whole-heartedly assert it was exactly the type of miracle that proves Jesus' divinity.

You should scroll back and see that the context of my reply was in relation to whether or not scripture compels us into a true or false dichotomy. (Ether a miracle happened or nothing happened.) Hence my reference to liberal hermeneutics which steer a path right thu the middle of that false dilemma

Or are you now joining most of us on this site and now think that, if there was a real person, then he was only one of many street preachers during that time and all the stories in the Bible are fabricated mythology?

LOL

 

[ruby sparks]

1. Citing characters from modern fiction that are known and acknowledged by the literary authors to have essentially been fictional creations is not a very useful comparison, imo.

2. Stating without reservation that it applies in this case is just presumptuous.

Both are examples of really poor reasoning imo.

Have you done any writing of this type, fiction, creative writing, etc.?

Whether I have or haven't, it would tell me very little, because it would be using modern genres to understand ancient ones.

What genre (or genres) the early christian writing were in, including those in the NT, is arguably very important in order to try to understand them in context, but which genre they belong in is disputed. Candidates for the gospels include novelistic biography (similar to Graeco-Roman biography of the time), theology, hagiography, pseudography (already established in the OT), Aretalogy, hero tales and probably others and probably a mix. Epistles were another matter.

One thing that's clear is that they weren't history, even by the much more lax standards of the day, when 'historians' making stuff up, being biased, and at times giving credibility to at least some miracles and the like (though not as many about one person as in the gospels) was apparently common (historiography had a long way to go).

Useful article here, written by an atheist with a PhD in Classical History:

Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament (2016)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-genre.html

I think we can rule out that the writers of the gospels were writing history.

 

[lpetrich]

Leaving aside the question of miracles, I continue with laying out of possibilities. Here is for the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels on Jesus Christ:

• 100% historical - the non-miraculous parts of Gospels are letter-perfect documentaries
• Nearly all historical except for some small bits here and there
• Largely historical, but with sizable unhistorical parts
• About half-historical, half-unhistorical
• Largely unhistorical, but with sizable historical parties
• Nearly all unhistorical, except for some small bits here and there
• 100% unhistorical

 

[ruby sparks]

Leaving aside the question of miracles, I continue with laying out of possibilities. Here is for the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels on Jesus Christ:

• 100% historical - the non-miraculous parts of Gospels are letter-perfect documentaries
• Nearly all historical except for some small bits here and there
• Largely historical, but with sizable unhistorical parts
• About half-historical, half-unhistorical
• Largely unhistorical, but with sizable historical parties
• Nearly all unhistorical, except for some small bits here and there
• 100% unhistorical

I hope you have a way of deciding between those. If you do, join the end of the queue. When you reach the front, your views will be added to the long list of alternatives, most of the other ones being from different bible scholars.

Personally, I myself would put a line through the first one. There are geographical errors for starters, I believe, and I don't know anyone personally over the age of 13 who thinks the nativity stories (take your pick from at least 2 versions) are true, even the non-miraculous parts.

Fun fact: for those that don't already know, there was an early (2nd C) Christian sect (or sects) called the Ebionites, and Tertullian (early church father) apparently, writing around 200 CE, appears to have thought they were named after a man whose name was Ebion, but apparently they weren't. 'Ebionites' is, it seems, derived from the Hebrew term ('ebionim') for 'the poor'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

1. Citing characters from modern fiction that are known and acknowledged by the literary authors to have essentially been fictional creations is not a very useful comparison, imo.

2. Stating without reservation that it applies in this case is just presumptuous.

Both are examples of really poor reasoning imo.

Have you done any writing of this type, fiction, creative writing, etc.?

Whether I have or haven't, it would tell me very little, because it would be using modern genres to understand ancient ones.

What genre (or genres) the early christian writing were in, including those in the NT, is arguably very important in order to try to understand them in context, but which genre they belong in is disputed. Candidates for the gospels include novelistic biography (similar to Graeco-Roman biography of the time), theology, hagiography, pseudography (already established in the OT), Aretalogy, hero tales and probably others and probably a mix. Epistles were another matter.

One thing that's clear is that they weren't history, even by the much more lax standards of the day, when 'historians' making stuff up, being biased, and at times giving credibility to at least some miracles and the like (though not as many about one person as in the gospels) was apparently common (historiography had a long way to go).

Useful article here, written by an atheist with a PhD in Classical History:

Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament (2016)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/matthew_ferguson/gospel-genre.html

I think we can rule out that the writers of the gospels were writing history.

And even someone without a literary background should come to the same conclusion, provided they don't bring along their religious bias.

As someone who studies ancient historical writing in the original Greek and Latin languages, it is clear to me that the Gospels are not historical writing. These texts instead read like ancient novelistic literature.[3] In all but Luke, we do not hear anything about the written sources that the authors consulted, and even the author of Luke does not name them, explain their contents, or discuss how they are relevant as sources. The authors of the Gospels do not discuss how they learned their stories or what their personal relations are to these events, and even when John claims to have an eyewitness disciple "whom Jesus loved," the gospel does not even bother to name or identify this mysterious figure (most likely an invention of the author).[4] Instead, the Gospels provide story-like narratives, where the authors omnisciently narrate everything that occurs rather than engage in any form of critical analysis. Accordingly, the Gospels all fall short from the criteria that can be used to categorize a piece of historical prose.

Thanks for another good link. I thought maybe I was going to be reading something from Peter Kirby with that link title.

The gospels are clearly liturgical documents, not history. When a certain priest decades ago was expounding upon the historical fact that jesus rose from the dead and performed numerous miracles his entire delivery would have made excellent sense had he said ...liturgical fact... and not historical fact." His confusing the two is understandable given his position.

I've insisted for decades the same thing, that the synoptic gospels read like novels.

That really is a good read, and not so long an article. Thanks again.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've insisted for decades the same thing, that the synoptic gospels read like novels.

That really is a good read, and not so long an article. Thanks again.

Yes it’s a good article, by a relevant, highly-qualified expert, and a non-theist to boot. I just found it yesterday.

I opined earlier that secular historians generally tend to shy away from opinions about Jesus’ existence, but this one agrees Jesus existed (was an obscure Galilean peasant) and was probably crucified by the Romans, and says in his final paragraph:

“Using historical-critical methodology like this, therefore, can help historians sift between fact and fiction in the Gospels. As I explain above, I do think that there are some historically reliable stories in the Gospels. But, nevertheless, because of legendary elements—such as redaction, Midrash, allegorical characters, and fulfillment of scripture citations—I do not think that we can take their accounts at face value.”

So not really like Gone With the Wind or Spider-Man in his view.

 

[Atheos]

It can certainly be argued that there are major differences between the gospels and GWTW/Spiderman, but since false dichotomies have been brought up already in this thread I'd like to point out that there is a place somewhere between "exactly like" and "completely unlike" in which the gospels fall.

As an example, when the writer(s) of Matthew invented a story about a bunch of undead people walking around Jerusalem on Passover eve they did something very similar to Spider Man #583 where Peter Parker is taking photos at Barack Obama's inauguration and a fake Barack Obama steps out of a limo (a villain called Chameleon). Spider Man saves the day of course.

Is it exactly the same? No. But there are similarities. The same thing can be said about GWTW, which is historical fiction. There is plenty of room for debate about just how much of the (non miraculous) gospel narratives are inspired by actual events. My personal feeling is that it's less than 50%. And from what I've learned from having a lay interest in this subject for many years, while there is the possibility that it's 0% there is no possibility that it's 100%.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It can certainly be argued that there are major differences between the gospels and GWTW/Spiderman, but since false dichotomies have been brought up already in this thread I'd like to point out that there is a place somewhere between "exactly like" and "completely unlike" in which the gospels fall.

As an example, when the writer(s) of Matthew invented a story about a bunch of undead people walking around Jerusalem on Passover eve they did something very similar to Spider Man #583 where Peter Parker is taking photos at Barack Obama's inauguration and a fake Barack Obama steps out of a limo (a villain called Chameleon). Spider Man saves the day of course.

Is it exactly the same? No. But there are similarities. The same thing can be said about GWTW, which is historical fiction. There is plenty of room for debate about just how much of the (non miraculous) gospel narratives are inspired by actual events. My personal feeling is that it's less than 50%. And from what I've learned from having a lay interest in this subject for many years, while there is the possibility that it's 0% there is no possibility that it's 100%.

I'm just the opposite in that I would assert that 100% of what an author pens is based on experience. Doesn't mean what he is writing is factual, only that his or her ideas didn't just fall into the brain from the sky. Those personal experiences are the genesis, writers write from experience, as any writer will attest.

What's good about the article ruby sparks posted is that the difference between what is ancient history and what is ancient fiction is made quite clear. It's impossible to argue with the methodology. But if my lexicon is heavy into religious belief and if my personal identity is tied to fictional accounts like canonical gospels I'll pretty much swallow anything that fits that bias.

 

[lpetrich]

I propose a thought experiment. Go back in time in a time machine to where and when Jesus Christ lived. Paper over a lot of details of doing so:

• You are immune to the diseases that the local people suffered from and sometimes became carriers of.
• You cannot transmit any disease to the people that you are around.
• You are fluent in the local languages.
• You dress like the local people.
• You have a cover story.
• You have some clever concealment of audio and video recording equipment.

You are present among the people there, but totally inconspicuous. Your cover story would include a cover story for your appearance. If you have a lot of Northern European ancestry, then you'd be a Gaul or a Briton or a German or a Scythian. If you are black, then you'd be an Ethiopian. Etc.

What would you see? Would you encounter a historical Jesus Christ in the flesh? If so, what did he say and do?

 

[ruby sparks]

It can certainly be argued that there are major differences between the gospels and GWTW/Spiderman, but since false dichotomies have been brought up already in this thread I'd like to point out that there is a place somewhere between "exactly like" and "completely unlike" in which the gospels fall.

As an example, when the writer(s) of Matthew invented a story about a bunch of undead people walking around Jerusalem on Passover eve they did something very similar to Spider Man #583 where Peter Parker is taking photos at Barack Obama's inauguration and a fake Barack Obama steps out of a limo (a villain called Chameleon). Spider Man saves the day of course.

Is it exactly the same? No. But there are similarities. The same thing can be said about GWTW, which is historical fiction. There is plenty of room for debate about just how much of the (non miraculous) gospel narratives are inspired by actual events. My personal feeling is that it's less than 50%. And from what I've learned from having a lay interest in this subject for many years, while there is the possibility that it's 0% there is no possibility that it's 100%.

I think I agree with all of that, including the personal feelings about percentages.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm just the opposite in that I would assert that 100% of what an author pens is based on experience. Doesn't mean what he is writing is factual, only that his or her ideas didn't just fall into the brain from the sky. Those personal experiences are the genesis, writers write from experience, as any writer will attest.

Sure, any writer setting out to write a fictional novel would attest to that, but I don’t think we can merely presume that’s what the authors of the gospels were doing.

My own best guess is that they had heard, and believed, stories about some obscure Galilean politico-religious figure who had been crucified by the Romans about 30-40 years earlier, and some stories about him, and used that as their starting point.

They might well have been converts to the fledgling cult that had formed around this figure. It seems plausible.

As such, I think it would have been their religious beliefs about a man they took to have existed and done some (to them) very impressive and important things that motivated them initially.

An important question is, ‘who was the intended audience?’

Imo, probably either other believers or potential new converts.

The first gospel writer may have wanted to put down in writing and collect together stories that had hitherto been circulating only orally. Transmission of stories and information was very different from what we are used to in modern times. A lot of stuff was apparently initially passed around orally. Writing materials were expensive for starters.

I doubt if, at the time of writing, there were any written stories at all about any such figures, even though there had been several in Judea around that time.

 

[ruby sparks]

I propose a thought experiment. Go back in time in a time machine to where and when Jesus Christ lived. Paper over a lot of details of doing so:

• You are immune to the diseases that the local people suffered from and sometimes became carriers of.
• You cannot transmit any disease to the people that you are around.
• You are fluent in the local languages.
• You dress like the local people.
• You have a cover story.
• You have some clever concealment of audio and video recording equipment.

You are present among the people there, but totally inconspicuous. Your cover story would include a cover story for your appearance. If you have a lot of Northern European ancestry, then you'd be a Gaul or a Briton or a German or a Scythian. If you are black, then you'd be an Ethiopian. Etc.

What would you see? Would you encounter a historical Jesus Christ in the flesh? If so, what did he say and do?

This in an invitation to guess.

My personal guess, fwiw, is that yes, there’d be a fringe, itinerant Jewish guy from what we might nowadays call a low socioeconomic background.

I’d guess he was not well known about, even in Judea generally and certainly not in Jerusalem. Familiarity with him might have been restricted to Galilee (my guess for his home and stamping grounds). I’d guess he went about Galilee preaching stuff to whoever would listen. It would most likely have involved the same sort of things that other radical or non-establishment Jewish figures were coming out with during those times (nationalism, anti-Roman oppression, stuff about Yahweh, woo in general, Israel rising up, upending the social order, criticism of the Jewish establishment for cow-towing or collaborating with the occupying imperialist oppressors, etc).

Healings and other magic tricks would have been par for the course and my guess is he’d have been claiming to be able to do them. That sort of thing seemed to be a way of getting people’s attention and proving your credentials. Prophecies were popular too, I believe, including those that framed the current situation (ie prophecies that had supposedly already come to pass, or were just about to).

My guess is that at some point he came to the attention of the Romans, who took a very dim view of such things, so they killed him before he could stir up more trouble and discontent. My guess is he would not have been popular at all with the Jewish establishment or elites either, because his ‘populist, proto-democratic-socialism’ would have been a serious threat to their status if it had caught on.

Galilee fits because apparently it was a bit of a hotbed of radical dissent in those times. It was to some extent self-governing and left to its own devices. The Romans did not station troops there, I believe.

The increase in Jewish dissent seems to coincide with rises in taxes levied by the Romans.

 

[Atheos]

Ruby, for sake of argument let's assume you're spot-on. You mention the following:

Healings and other magic tricks would have been par for the course and my guess is he’d have been claiming to be able to do them. That sort of thing seemed to be a way of getting people’s attention and proving your credentials. Prophecies were popular too, I believe, including those that framed the current situation (ie prophecies that had supposedly already come to pass, or were just about to).

Do you know of actual historical evidence in support of this statement? I ask this because while I've always heard it I've never actually seen genuine hard evidence to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it was in fact common for garden-variety street preachers to prophecy, heal people and perform other miracles during the period in question.

Are we somehow projecting today's norm where there are more miracle-working preachers than you can shake a stick at to a time when they were rare (or as Stroebel tries to argue there was only one?)

 

[ruby sparks]

Ruby, for sake of argument let's assume you're spot-on. You mention the following:

Healings and other magic tricks would have been par for the course and my guess is he’d have been claiming to be able to do them. That sort of thing seemed to be a way of getting people’s attention and proving your credentials. Prophecies were popular too, I believe, including those that framed the current situation (ie prophecies that had supposedly already come to pass, or were just about to).

Do you know of actual historical evidence in support of this statement? I ask this because while I've always heard it I've never actually seen genuine hard evidence to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it was in fact common for garden-variety street preachers to prophecy, heal people and perform other miracles during the period in question.

Are we somehow projecting today's norm where there are more miracle-working preachers than you can shake a stick at to a time when they were rare (or as Stroebel tries to argue there was only one?)

I don’t have many sources to hand here and I’m away from my computer, but I did earlier cite a few such types from around that time and place. They are mostly sourced from Josephus, without whom we would arguably have very little about the lives of Jews in ancient Judea.

I have in the past explored it in more detail, yes, but that was some time ago.

It seems to be generally true, is what I would say, to the point that it’s plausible.

I don’t know what you mean by genuine, actual, hard evidence to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, but then I do think you are generally setting the bar pretty high, for facts about Jews from this time and place.

It’s also worth noting that miracles (and I think from memory healings, certainly prophecies) were reportedly being attempted by very early Christian proselytisers. In which case we could be talking about copycatting.

 

[ruby sparks]

To add....

There are certainly an unusual number of supposed healings and other miracles in the gospels. I’m not sure there are many if any parallels for other figures from that time and place, in terms of amount.

But the gospels were likely written by people who already thought they were writing about an actual supernatural and divine figure, and that other believers also thought this, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they made up more incidents and/or that there were a lot doing the rounds in stories and that they included them.

Personally I’d guess they made at least some of them up themselves. Others they got from stories.

 

[ruby sparks]

I just quickly googled. I’m on my phone and it may not be the best source, but just for example, regarding healings (written by a modern Jewish rabbi):


“In the Dead Sea Scrolls, evil spirits are regarded as the source of many illnesses, an idea that finds parallels in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ healing ministries. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there exists a fragmentary text (4Q560) that is a collection of protective formulae for fending off demonic attack. Specifically, it deals with protection against fevers, tuberculosis, chest pain, and the dangers of childbirth. Other texts (4Q510-11; 11Q11) deal with the binding of disease-causing demons.

In rabbinic writings the word for epilepsy, nikhpeh, means to be possessed. Exorcizing spells are therefore included along with other treatments. The Talmud regards demons as the cause of ocular diseases, food poisoning, and other ailments (Pesahim 111b-112a). Witchcraft, spiritual attack by another human being, was also an accepted explanation for disease. In the Talmud an opinion is recorded that “99 out of 100 die from an evil eye (Bava Metzia 107b).”

I don’t think the level of superstition involved, in the absence of any proper medical science, can easily be overstated in this particular context. Sick people suffered terribly and were desperate for remedies, and supernatural causes and cures seemed to be widely accepted.

Some of them might even have been partially effective. I once read of an ancient Jewish remedy for some forms of blindness that had at least some, now known to be medical, basis, albeit hit and miss and not applicable in some cases, and which matches quite well one of the descriptions of a cure supposedly administered by Jesus. From memory I think the technique involved rubbing a very small amount of dirt or soil or dust against the eye, to abraisively remove an obstruction.