Any pre-325 CE writings where Jesus' historicity was doubted?

[GakuseiDon]

Are you contending that these people thought that the figure of IS XS appeared in history as a god, or a deity, or a spirit, or a mythological being rather than a historical "fleshy" human being?

That's right. So if Marcion, for example, had a time machine, he'd have thought he could go back in time and meet the phantasm Jesus.

[Leucius Charinus]

Are you contending that these people thought that the figure of IS XS appeared in history as a god, or a deity, or a spirit, or a mythological being rather than a historical "fleshy" human being?

That's right. So if Marcion, for example, had a time machine, he'd have thought he could go back in time and meet the phantasm Jesus.

I can accept that whoever it was that wrote:

• "For many deceivers are entered into the world,
  who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
  This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

could have had people like Marcion in mind on the basis that such people asserted that Jesus was not a "fleshy" historical figure but rather a phantasm.

However what about people who may have asserted that Jesus Christ was a fictional character? That is, that in theory there were (other) people who asserted Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh because he was fictional being - that the NT was a fiction story. If such people had a time machine, they'd have thought they could go back in time and find a historicity vacuum.

Is this not also completely consistent with the claim made in 2 John 1:7? It appears to me that the claim made in 2 John 1:7 is consistent with both views. How do we rule one out and one in?

[GakuseiDon]

However what about people who may have asserted that Jesus Christ was a fictional character? That is, that in theory there were (other) people who asserted Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh because he was fictional being - that the NT was a fiction story. If such people had a time machine, they'd have thought they could go back in time and find a historicity vacuum.

Yes.

Is this not also completely consistent with the claim made in 2 John 1:7? It appears to me that the claim made in 2 John 1:7 is consistent with both views. How do we rule one out and one in?

Because we have examples of early people who seemed to have believed that there was a Jesus who was there but not in the flesh, but no examples (as far as I know, and thus this thread) of early people who seemed to believe that Jesus was not there at all.

[maryhelena]

Are you contending that these people thought that the figure of IS XS appeared in history as a god, or a deity, or a spirit, or a mythological being rather than a historical "fleshy" human being?

That's right. So if Marcion, for example, had a time machine, he'd have thought he could go back in time and meet the phantasm Jesus.

I can accept that whoever it was that wrote:

• "For many deceivers are entered into the world,
  who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
  This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

could have had people like Marcion in mind on the basis that such people asserted that Jesus was not a "fleshy" historical figure but rather a phantasm.

However what about people who may have asserted that Jesus Christ was a fictional character? That is, that in theory there were (other) people who asserted Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh because he was fictional being - that the NT was a fiction story. If such people had a time machine, they'd have thought they could go back in time and find a historicity vacuum.

Is this not also completely consistent with the claim made in 2 John 1:7? It appears to me that the claim made in 2 John 1:7 is consistent with both views. How do we rule one out and one in?

Pete

I'm not sure this NT text can be taken both ways. I don't know any Greek - but the wording is strange if the writer was attempting to discredit those who disbelieved a historical gospel Jesus existed. ''Jesus Christ is come in the flesh' hardly seems to be an argument one would argue against a historical Jesus. ie a human man born of a human woman. ''come in the flesh', seems to me, to refer to some theological notion of a spirit taking on flesh. Flesh in appearance but not flesh in historical reality. In other words - don't check your premises - go with the flow and enjoy the theological fantasy....No different, of course, to some historical Jesus believers of today.....or many mythicists for that matter...(both groups running with heavenly mythical fathers...)

Actually, I think the bigger question here is not the serious lack of doubters in the writings of the 'church fathers' - after all, although heresy raised its head very early - once a power base was established it would have attempted to stifle heresy. The real issue is not that the early 'church fathers' interpreted the gospel Jesus as a historical figure - the real question is what was the intent of the gospel writers. Were they aware that their story could be interpreted as a historical Jesus story? Would it have bothered the gospel writers that their story might become something other than they intended ?

One could perhaps answer like gospel Jesus when questioned about his use of parables:

Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

Don't take things at face value - don't read stories, don't read words on paper, as the end of the story. The words are only the vehicle that carries the story - it is to understand the story that is important - a story that is more than the sum, the words, of it's parts. So, yes, the gospel Jesus story needs to be interpreted - and one way is the simple way - read the words as supporting a historical gospel Jesus. (of whatever variant suits one) That's the believers reading the words. The doubters look at the words and attempt to understand the words via an historical approach to the story. The writers of the Jesus story, like the gospel Jesus, have written a parable - an open ended parable - and left it to their readers to open their eyes, open their ears, to understand, to make sense of the written words within the context of human reality and the echo of history.

[Leucius Charinus]

However what about people who may have asserted that Jesus Christ was a fictional character? That is, that in theory there were (other) people who asserted Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh because he was fictional being - that the NT was a fiction story. If such people had a time machine, they'd have thought they could go back in time and find a historicity vacuum.

Yes.

Is this not also completely consistent with the claim made in 2 John 1:7? It appears to me that the claim made in 2 John 1:7 is consistent with both views. How do we rule one out and one in?

Because we have examples of early people who seemed to have believed that there was a Jesus who was there but not in the flesh, but no examples (as far as I know, and thus this thread) of early people who seemed to believe that Jesus was not there at all.

I can understand this position however I'd still question whether this permits one to logically rule out (or falsify) the contention that the author of 2 John 1:7 was complaining about those who doubted Jesus' historicity. To do so would IMHO risk the "All swans are white" fallacy.

[Popper] argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans which is not possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

We cannot theoretically observe the opinions (and the basis of these opinions) of what all people thought about Jesus Christ of the NT narrative. The ancients accepted three types of narratives: history (historia), fiction (plasma), and mythos. How did they receive the NT narrative? The church and its "Fathers" preserved this NT narrative and the history of the reception of this NT narrative.


Controversy

The limit in the OP seeks writings before 325 CE in which Jesus' historicity was doubted. We should be mindful that it was reported that the Nicene council of 325 CE was called "on account of the words of Arius". These writings of Arius - now destroyed by the church - circulated prior to 325 CE.

The Arian controversy was a massive controversy over the "essence" of Jesus as described in the NT narrative purportedly written almost 300 years in the past. How was the 300 y/o narrative (and thus the "essence") of IS XS received? Was this 300 y/o NT narrative (and thus "essence" of IS XS) received -- in a most controversial manner - as historical, fictional or mythological?

Are all swans white? The victors after 325 CE certainly wrote the history of a white swan but IMHO I don't think we can rule out swans of other colors.

[GakuseiDon]

Is this not also completely consistent with the claim made in 2 John 1:7? It appears to me that the claim made in 2 John 1:7 is consistent with both views. How do we rule one out and one in?

Because we have examples of early people who seemed to have believed that there was a Jesus who was there but not in the flesh, but no examples (as far as I know, and thus this thread) of early people who seemed to believe that Jesus was not there at all.

I can understand this position however I'd still question whether this permits one to logically rule out (or falsify) the contention that the author of 2 John 1:7 was complaining about those who doubted Jesus' historicity. To do so would IMHO risk the "All swans are white" fallacy.

I agree, it doesn't logically rule out that 2 John 1:7 was complaining about those who doubted Jesus' historicity. My point is that if we have evidence on one side, and no evidence (purpose of this thread) on the other, we can provisionally rule on one side until further evidence comes along.

We cannot theoretically observe the opinions (and the basis of these opinions) of what all people thought about Jesus Christ of the NT narrative. The ancients accepted three types of narratives: history (historia), fiction (plasma), and mythos. How did they receive the NT narrative? The church and its "Fathers" preserved this NT narrative and the history of the reception of this NT narrative.

While we don't have the writings of the heretics themselves, we can get an idea of what the heresies were about from the early apologists. No-one as far as I know (purpose of this thread) ever questioned the historical existence of Jesus. There are some interesting passages that have been brought up, so perhaps others disagree. If there had been such a "non-existence" heresy, would the anti-heresy apologists have been expected to mention them? I'd think so.

Are all swans white? The victors after 325 CE certainly wrote the history of a white swan but IMHO I don't think we can rule out swans of other colors.

I agree.

2 John 1:7 aside, are there any other pre-325 CE writings, or writings that are generally considered to be pre-325 CE, where Jesus' historicity was doubted? You're probably the best person to ask this on this thread.

[Leucius Charinus]

Is this not also completely consistent with the claim made in 2 John 1:7? It appears to me that the claim made in 2 John 1:7 is consistent with both views. How do we rule one out and one in?

Because we have examples of early people who seemed to have believed that there was a Jesus who was there but not in the flesh, but no examples (as far as I know, and thus this thread) of early people who seemed to believe that Jesus was not there at all.

I can understand this position however I'd still question whether this permits one to logically rule out (or falsify) the contention that the author of 2 John 1:7 was complaining about those who doubted Jesus' historicity. To do so would IMHO risk the "All swans are white" fallacy.

I agree, it doesn't logically rule out that 2 John 1:7 was complaining about those who doubted Jesus' historicity. My point is that if we have evidence on one side, and no evidence (purpose of this thread) on the other, we can provisionally rule on one side until further evidence comes along.

I guess that's fair enough.

We cannot theoretically observe the opinions (and the basis of these opinions) of what all people thought about Jesus Christ of the NT narrative. The ancients accepted three types of narratives: history (historia), fiction (plasma), and mythos. How did they receive the NT narrative? The church and its "Fathers" preserved this NT narrative and the history of the reception of this NT narrative.

While we don't have the writings of the heretics themselves, we can get an idea of what the heresies were about from the early apologists. No-one as far as I know (purpose of this thread) ever questioned the historical existence of Jesus. There are some interesting passages that have been brought up, so perhaps others disagree. If there had been such a "non-existence" heresy, would the anti-heresy apologists have been expected to mention them? I'd think so.

I'd think that the later church would want any such references excised. For example:

"I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion" (Eusebius, Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

Are all swans white? The victors after 325 CE certainly wrote the history of a white swan but IMHO I don't think we can rule out swans of other colors.

I agree.

2 John 1:7 aside, are there any other pre-325 CE writings, or writings that are generally considered to be pre-325 CE, where Jesus' historicity was doubted? You're probably the best person to ask this on this thread.

I don't expect any of this to gain traction --- but if we can accept that the words of Arius were being circulated prior to 325 CE (and on account of which the Nicene Council of 325 CE was called) then I'd offer these:

* He was made out of nothing existing.
* He is/was from another subsistence/substance.

I set out some reasons that these statements refer to the historicity of Jesus in an essay (esp. see p.47):

Arius Satirized Constantine’s Jesus: The Hidden History of the New Testament Apocryphal Literature (2009)
https://www.academia.edu/37961293/Arius ... Literature

[rgprice]

While we don't have the writings of the heretics themselves, we can get an idea of what the heresies were about from the early apologists. No-one as far as I know (purpose of this thread) ever questioned the historical existence of Jesus. There are some interesting passages that have been brought up, so perhaps others disagree. If there had been such a "non-existence" heresy, would the anti-heresy apologists have been expected to mention them? I'd think so.

Unfortunately, the arguments just weren't that sophisticated. We know that Christians refuted the claim that their accounts of Jesus were fabrications (I've cited such statements). But all we have are the statements on one side, we don't really know exactly what was being said.

But most of the writings of the Church Fathers were dealing with claims made by other believing Christians. They were meant to show that other people who worshiped Jesus didn't really understand who Jesus was. So naturally, such people aren't actual doubters about the existence of Jesus, these were all people who worshiped Jesus. And what we can see is that every single group of people that the Church Father's railed against was worshiping some figure described in a Gospel that was similar to the Gospels we know.

What we don't have is evidence of people arguing over the nature of Jesus or existence of Jesus from some basis other than Gospel stories. Any writings we have that appear to have been written by people who didn't know the Gospels, also fail to describe Jesus as any kind of person, so they provide no insight either. There is really only one Jesus person who is ever discussed as that is the character of the Gospel stories.

Even Celsus only knows the Gospel Jesus. https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... lsus3.html

Yes, Celsus makes some claim about the "real" biography of Jesus, but it is evident that these supposed "real facts" about Jesus are themselves just alternative imaginings derived from the Gospels.

"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumors about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)."

But this is not surprising. For example, when it came to the Sibyls, even Pausanias and Cicero thought they we real. Even when railing against the works of the Sibyls Cicero never charged that the works of the Sibyls were all just forgeries.

We Romans venerate the verses of the Sibyl who is said to have uttered them while in a frenzy. Recently there was a rumor, which was believed at the time, but turned out to be false, that one of the interpreters of those verses was going to declare in the Senate that, for our safety, the man whom we had as king in fact should be made king also in name. If this is in the books, to what man and to what time does it refer? For it was clever in the author to take care that whatever happened should appear foretold because all reference to persons or time had been omitted. He also employed a maze of obscurity so that the same verses might be adapted to different situations at different times. Moreover, that this poem is not the work of frenzy is quite evident from the quality of its composition (for it exhibits artistic care rather than emotional excitement), and is especially evident from the fact that it is written in what is termed 'acrostics,' wherein the initial letters of each verse taken in order convey a meaning; as, for example, in some of Ennius's verses, the initial letters form the words, Quintus Ennius Fecit, that is, 'Quintus Ennius wrote it.' That surely is the work of concentrated thought and not of a frenzied brain. And in the Sibylline books, throughout the entire work, each prophecy is embellished with an acrostic, so that the initial letters of each of the lines give the subject of that particular prophecy. Such a work comes from a writer who is not frenzied, who is painstaking, not crazy. Therefore let us keep the Sibyl under lock and key so that in accordance with the ordinances of our forefathers her books may not even be read without permission of the Senate and may be more effective in banishing rather than encouraging superstitious ideas.
-Cicero, De Divinatione 2.54

What Cicero does not say, nor are there any recorded charges of anyone saying, was that the writings of the Sibyls were all forgeries and that there was no Sibyl at all. No one ever said that. Yet today, that is the position of every Classicist. The writings of the Sibyls were pure fabrications attributed to a made up figure who never existed. But no ancient critic ever said that.

[GakuseiDon]

Yes, Celsus makes some claim about the "real" biography of Jesus, but it is evident that these supposed "real facts" about Jesus are themselves just alternative imaginings derived from the Gospels.

"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumors about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)."

Out of interest, how is it evident that Celsus's information about Jesus that does not appear in Christian's records are just alternative imaginings derived from the Gospels?

[rgprice]

Yes, Celsus makes some claim about the "real" biography of Jesus, but it is evident that these supposed "real facts" about Jesus are themselves just alternative imaginings derived from the Gospels.

"Let us imagine what a Jew- let alone a philosopher- might say to Jesus: 'Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumors about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in the royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was uncovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a roman soldier called Panthera she was driven away by her husband- the carpenter- and convicted of adultery?"

"I could continue along these lines, suggesting a good deal about the affairs of Jesus' life that does not appear in your own records. Indeed, what I know to be the case and what the disciples tell are two very different stories... [for example] the nonsensical idea that Jesus foresaw everything that was to happen to him (an obvious attempt to conceal the humiliating facts)."

Out of interest, how is it evident that Celsus's information about Jesus that does not appear in Christian's records are just alternative imaginings derived from the Gospels?

He never says anything that is not based on the Gospel stories. HIs account of the birth is obviously derived from the Gospel stories. There is of course no reason to think those stories had any basis in fact, so only offering alternative versions of those same stories is nothing at all really. Saying, "His mother Mary was really just a whore who lied to her carpenter husband," isn't evidence of knowledge of alternative information, it is merely a denigrating interpretation of the espoused story.

"I could go on and on telling you things you don't know" (but I won't). Mean come on. He says nothing there. The one example that we are given is clearly just a logical rationalization of claims made in the Gospels. It's not evidence of "real knowledge" of the "real person" its someone offering a rational alternative to a fantastical story.

He didn't foretell his own death, the writers of his biography just made that up to hide the fact that he had no idea what was coming. Like saying, "I meant to do that" when you fall off your bike while trying to do a trick.

This is nothing more than the typical stuff people do today. Coming up with rational explanations for claims made in the stories. Its like when someone says, "Jesus didn't really 'walk on water', what actually happened was there was a freeze and he walked on ice, but people didn't realize it." That's not an alternative account of what really happened, that's just trying to come up with a rational explanation for how a claim made in the story could have literally happened and be scientifically explainable. That's all that Celsus ever does.