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

[Chrissy Hansen]

I thought I'd start a new thread here rather than interrupt the one here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11683

Why is this important (replying to Joseph D L)? Because I am tired to hear the apologetical motive that none doubted about the historicity of Jesus in the Antiquity.

Giuseppe believes that in Ignatius' letter to the Philadelphians, his critics question the historicity of Jesus. Fair enough, I'll leave arguments on that topic to run in the other thread.

Leaving Giuseppe's example aside, are there any examples of texts expressing doubt of the historicity of Jesus before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE? I don't remember any examples from Carrier and Doherty's books, but I will review them when I get the chance.

I don't remember there being any overt examples, but are there any hints in early texts before 325 CE that might be taken to question the historicity of Jesus?

By 'historical Jesus', I mean a figure living around 30 CE who inspired the Gospel stories, even if the Gospel stories themselves are false. So someone questioning the validity of the Gospel stories (like the Emperor Julian in the 4th C CE) isn't necessarily questioning the historicity of the person.

(Personally I don't see this as impacting the HJ/MJ debate, unless the texts are very early. Someone in 230 CE describing what did or didn't happen in 30 CE probably doesn't provide much evidence of what happened in 30 CE.)

I have never found a single convincing piece of evidence that anyone denied the historicity of Jesus prior to the 1600s. The earliest evidence I've ever found was Hugo Grotius responding to people (unnamed) claiming Jesus didn't exist by producing evidence of his existence from non-Christian sources.

[Giuseppe]

There is also a difference between old deniers and old agnostics.

As Richard Carrier says about the witness of Trypho:

This is an agnostic, noncommittal position. It is simply saying, “You can’t even prove your guy existed, so why should I believe anything else you have to say about him?” It’s a burden-shifting argument. It is not an argument against historicity. But it does reflect the fact that, indeed, Justin had no credible evidence Jesus even existed

(my bold)

...whereas the following is a witness of explicit denial:

He [the True Prophet] is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed.

(Recognitions 8:62, my bold)

[Chrissy Hansen]

Recognitiones 8.62 is not denying the historicity of Jesus. Neither is Trypho being noncommittal. Carrier just hasn't bothered reading the rest of the Dialogue evidently.

Recognitions 8.62 in full reads:

"And, therefore, since among these philosophers are things uncertain, we must come to the true Prophet. Him God the Father wished to be loved by all, and accordingly He has been pleased wholly to extinguish those opinions which have originated with men, and in regard to which there is nothing like certainty — that He the true Prophet might be the more sought after, and that He whom they had obscured should show to men the way of truth. For on this account also God made the world, and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed. And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet, he dismissed the crowds; and when he very earnestly entreated the old man to remain with us, he could prevail nothing; but he also departed, to return next day, as had been agreed upon. And after this, we also, with Peter, went to our lodging, and enjoyed our accustomed food and rest.

It is pretty obvious that Pseudo-Clement via Peter's mouth is talking about Jesus' continued existence and his dwelling in all people, i.e., there are unbelieving people who denied Jesus' continued presence. There is nothing here obviously talking about Jesus' historicity. You've just (as per usual) taken a quote out of context and claimed it is about the denial of Jesus' historicity.

[Giuseppe]

I have quoted Recognitions 8:62 as example of a complete denial. When Arthur Drews titled his magnum opus The Christ Myth, he meant to deny also the historicity of Jesus, not only the existence of the Christ. Only apologists may think the contrary. And in the case of Recognitions 8:62, a distinction is made also between "the unbelieving", to whom the True Prophet is only "dormant", and other people, to whom "His existence is not believed". Hence, what are the latter in comparison to the mere 'unbelieving' ?

Best answer: deniers.

[rgprice]

The 2 Peter 1 bit is with regard to specific miracles, like the transfiguration. Nothing in the text indications this is about the whole of Jesus' historicity. Similarly, the Trypho bit is about whether or not Jesus is the messiah, i.e., Jesus cannot be the Christ (thus, Christians have invented a messiah for themselves) because Elijah never came back to anoint him. He outright says this later on in the Dialogue, and elsewhere just presumes that Jesus existed the entire time.

I'm not sure that's the case. Firstly, again we have to take into account that we are reading statements made by faithful orthodox Christians here.

The fuller quote from 2 Peter is:

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

This writer is answering what must have been a common charge, which was that such believers were mistakenly believing "cleverly devised tales", meaning things that weren't true and didn't happen.

This person, who is a forger, answers this charge by lying and claiming to have been an eyewitness to a fantastical claim made in the Gospels. But this is merely given as an example. The claim being made is that they were present at all of the events described in the Gospels and saw them first hand. This is intended to counter the apparent claim that "these things never happened."

As for Trypho. The passage I quoted is essentially Trypho's opening statement in the dialogue. "Trypho" is of course a strawman. This opening statement expresses doubt about the accounts of Jesus, the Gospels, and indicates they are just made up stories. Of course from there Justin goes on to show how many details recorded in the Gospels are confirmed by the Jewish scriptures, like John the Baptist being Elijah, etc., and that the Christ would suffer, etc.

But yes I think that Justin has his strawman open with the claim that the accounts of Jesus are just "groundless fables" and then Justin goes on from there to "show" that they aren't.

This of course does not necessarily "prove" that there were people alleging that "Jesus never existed" or that the accounts of Jesus were "just fictional inventions". I offered these because they among the best such evidence there is, meager as it is. But again, we don't have the accounts of the opponents of the orthodox Christians. None of that as been preserved. All we have are the works of the church fathers, so...

[dabber]

Hi Again,

Celsus is amazed at the Christians' literal interpretation of what to him are obviously myths, writing,

"Is your belief based on the "fact" that this Jesus told in advance that he would rise again after his death? That your story includes his predictions of triumphing over the grave? Well, let it be so. Let's assume for the present that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead simple-minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolix, Pythagoras' servant, convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead, having hidden himself away in a cave for several years, and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy -or Phampsinitus in Egypt? Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly and above all Heracles and Theseus? But quite apart from all these risings from the dead, we must look carefully at the question of the resurrection of the body as a possibility given to mortals. Doubtless you will freely admit that these other stories are legends, even as they appear to me; but you will go on to say that you that your resurrection story is believable and noble."

[Chrissy Hansen]

The 2 Peter 1 bit is with regard to specific miracles, like the transfiguration. Nothing in the text indications this is about the whole of Jesus' historicity. Similarly, the Trypho bit is about whether or not Jesus is the messiah, i.e., Jesus cannot be the Christ (thus, Christians have invented a messiah for themselves) because Elijah never came back to anoint him. He outright says this later on in the Dialogue, and elsewhere just presumes that Jesus existed the entire time.

I'm not sure that's the case. Firstly, again we have to take into account that we are reading statements made by faithful orthodox Christians here.

The fuller quote from 2 Peter is:

16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

This writer is answering what must have been a common charge, which was that such believers were mistakenly believing "cleverly devised tales", meaning things that weren't true and didn't happen.

This person, who is a forger, answers this charge by lying and claiming to have been an eyewitness to a fantastical claim made in the Gospels. But this is merely given as an example. The claim being made is that they were present at all of the events described in the Gospels and saw them first hand. This is intended to counter the apparent claim that "these things never happened."

As for Trypho. The passages I quoted is essentially Trypho's opening statement in the dialogue. "Trypho" is of course a strawman. This opening statement expresses doubt about the accounts of Jesus, the Gospels, and indicates they are just made up stories. Of course from there Justin goes on to show how many details recorded in the Gospels are confirmed by the Jewish scriptures, like John the Baptist being Elijah, etc., and that the Christ would suffer, etc.

But yes I think that Justin has his strawman open with the claim that the accounts of Jesus are just "groundless fables" and then Justin goes on from there to "show" that they aren't.

Yes, that full quote from 2 Peter is utilizing the Gospels, and specifically referring to the transfiguration. That is where that quote first comes from. The reference to the holy mountain likewise makes it clear this is what they have in mind.

The accusation against the author of 2 Peter may have simply just been they believed in a bunch of miraculous guff. His claim is, "no we saw this miraculous guff first hand, so it isn't a fanciful fable." Celsus makes similar accusations in his own work, which Origen responded to. "These things never happened" is definitely what is being answered, but nothing in context makes it remotely evident they are denying the whole of Jesus' life, specifically since 2 Peter is answering by eyewitness testimony of the fabulous elements of the story, i.e., it seems they are fighting over whether Jesus actually underwent all these miraculous events.

The opening statement only seems to doubt that Jesus was the messiah. It does not challenge his life. It says he is not the Messiah because Elijah did not anoint him. Justin answers the charge by asserting that John the Baptist was Elijah. Thus, we see clearly from context this has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus actually existed. Likewise, Trypho throughout the dialogue asserts Jesus was a living person. Trypho says the same thing just more explicitly later on:

“It appears to me,” said Trypho, “that they who assert that He was of human origin, and was anointed as the Christ only by choice, propose a doctrine much more credible than yours. We Jews all expect that Christ will be a man of merely human origin, and that Elias will come to anoint Him. If this man appears to be the Christ, He must be considered to be a man of solely human birth, yet, from the fact that Elias has not yet come, I must declare that this man is not the Christ.”

Dialogue with Trypho 49.

So yeah. As far as I'm concerned, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether Jesus actually existed as a human being. Trypho's (made up) complaint is purely to do with whether the human Jesus was the messiah.

[dabber]

So Celsus mid 2nd C says the Greek resurrection stories are legends. He's not doubting J's historicity as a Jewish man that lived recently but the historicity of miracles and resurrection are legends too.

"Are ours to be accounted for as myths and theirs believed?"

He was the Christopher Hitchens of his day

[rgprice]

@CH

The Trypho character in the dialogue is basically skeptical throughout and prefaces everything with, "if", "assuming so", type statements.

“It appears to me,” said Trypho, “that they who assert that He was of human origin, and was anointed as the Christ only by choice, propose a doctrine much more credible than yours.

The Trypho character isn't committing to anything here. Justin has him being entirely non-committal. "If I were to assume that", etc.

But of course, Trypho is a fictional invention created by Justin, so we can't really expect much here. Of course Justin thinks that Jesus was real.

Yes, throughout the dialogue the Trypho character makes many statements, "fore the sake of argument". "For the sake of argument, assuming that X claim made by you is true, then..." That's the nature of Trypho's comments.

Of course the opening statement was:

But Christ — if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere — is unknown

From there, the Trypho character adopts the assumption that he has been born and did exist—for the sake of argument.

[Peter Kirby]

Leaving Giuseppe's example aside, are there any examples of texts expressing doubt of the historicity of Jesus

I doubt that there are any such examples.

But I can mention a couple places where the discussion has cropped up before.

• how mythicists are judged

Here, Irish1975 provided a translation of Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.33.5.

Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.33.5—

Iudicabit autem et eos qui putativum inducunt. Quemadmodum enim ipsi vere se putant disputare, quando magister eorum putativus fuit? Aut quemadmodum firmum quid habere possunt ab eo, si putativus et non veritas erat? Quomodo autem ipsi salutem vere participare possunt, si ille, in quem credere se dicunt, semetipsum putativum ostendebat? Putativum est igitur, et non veritas, omne apud eos: et nunc iam quaeretur, ne forte cum et ipsi homines non sint sed muta animalia, hominum umbras apud plurimos proferant.

My translation

{“A presbyter and disciple of the apostles once said to me [sc. Irenaeus]… }

He [the spiritual disciple of 1 Corinthians 2:15] will also judge those who speak of an alleged Christ. How can such persons imagine themselves to be saying something, if they had only an alleged teacher? Or how could they take something from him really solid, if he hadn’t been true, but only alleged? And how can they have a true share in salvation, if He, in whom they say they believe, only allegedly revealed himself? But then everything about them is likewise a conjecture, and not the truth. And one might ask if they are not really human, but dumb beasts, who pass for shadows among the masses.”

Most of the comment exploring the interpretation, instead of just presenting a translation, came from me at the time. It can be discussed, but I don't set out to defend what I wrote then.

• An ancient mythicist accusation in Recognitions 8:62

Again in this case, most of the comment exploring the interpretation also came from me at the time. Likewise, it can be discussed, but I don't know if I would defend what I wrote then.