Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:51 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:46 amAs you indicated above re my question on crucifixion - ''not necessarily I suppose' - then, I would suggest, that is a good starting point when looking for a figure, during the time of Tiberius and Pilate, that might have left his footprint.....

Fair point, but this thread isn't about looking for such a figure or his footprint. The opposite, in fact.

OK..... You want to find the early doubters. Perhaps an interesting exercise
- but neither doubters, nor those who trust the gospel Jesus story, can establish historicity or ahistoricity. The issue can't be resolved by a show of hands either in Antiquity or today.

I would just add, likewise, that even without such biases in the documentary record, we also don't find examples of people claiming that the Sibyls never existed either, or really hundreds or thousands of figures which it is now widely assumed, never existed.

A possible exception to this rule is Orpheus, whom apparently Aristotle supposedly doubted existed. In On the Nature of the Gods, Cicero stated that Aristotle claimed Orpheus never existed at all, though such a position is not found in the extant works of Aristotle.

The point is that such statements about various figures "not existing" or doubting the historical existence of various such figures, was not commonly expressed in ancient times at all. The existence of many such figures was widely accepted in the ancient world.

No Jewish or Persian text has questioned the existence of Esther, who was presented as the wife of the great Emperor Xerxes. Yet there is no debate about Esther's non-historicity. If you can invent an emperor's wife without any historian questioning her existence, then you can easily invent a Galilean hick without fear of being accused.

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:22 am I would just add, likewise, that even without such biases in the documentary record, we also don't find examples of people claiming that the Sibyls never existed either, or really hundreds or thousands of figures which it is ow widely assumed, never existed.

It's relevant to mention in this context the work of people like Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian to discredit Christians.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:26 am No Jewish or Persian text has questioned the existence of Esther, who was presented as the wife of the great Emperor Xerxes. Yet there is no debate about Esther's non-historicity. If you can invent an emperor's wife without any historian questioning her existence, then you can easily invent a Galilean hick without fear of being accused.

Exactly!

split from: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11688

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:22 am A possible exception to this rule is Orpheus, whom apparently Aristotle supposedly doubted existed. In On the Nature of the Gods, Cicero stated that Aristotle claimed Orpheus never existed at all, though such a position is not found in the extant works of Aristotle.

Aristotle tells us that there never existed a poet Orpheus, and it is a tradition of the Pythagoreans that the Orphic poem which we know was the work of one Cercops,

The point is that such statements about various figures "not existing" or doubting the historical existence of various such figures, was not commonly expressed in ancient times at all. The existence of many such figures was widely accepted in the ancient world.

I've argued this way before too. I do wonder about the 'possible exceptions'.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:30 am

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:22 am I would just add, likewise, that even without such biases in the documentary record, we also don't find examples of people claiming that the Sibyls never existed either, or really hundreds or thousands of figures which it is ow widely assumed, never existed.

It's relevant to mention in this context the work of people like Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian to discredit Christians.

Quite true. But also works like those of Varro and Pausanias who sought to document the lives of the Sibyls, especially Pausanias. Despite skepticism, Pausanias concluded that the Sibyls were real people and recorded biographies for them.

But also, when it comes to Celsus and the like, while we don't have record of them stating that "Jesus never existed", it is also clear that they presented no alternative knowledge of Jesus either. In other words, they did not say, "Oh yes, we know who he really was, we have an account of him that shows he really did this or that and was just a common criminal." No, that's not what they say. Instead, they, like everyone, worked from the Gospel stories and from the claims made about Jesus. They merely made critical remarks about "what was said about Jesus".

In other words they themselves possessed no "facts" that contradicted the claims of Christians, they were just expressing doubts about the claims being made. They made logical, philosophical, and theological objections.

The fact that they didn't present factual objections doesn't indicate that they were agreed on the facts, merely they they were equally ignorant of any facts.

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:22 am I would just add, likewise, that even without such biases in the documentary record, we also don't find examples of people claiming that the Sibyls never existed either, or really hundreds or thousands of figures which it is now widely assumed, never existed.

Actually, we do. For example, in Tatian's "Address to the Greeks":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... dress.html


Metrodorus of Lampsacus was a Greek philosopher who lived in 5th C BCE, pre-dating Plato.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:09 am GDon

The title of your thread asked the question: Any pre-325 CE writings where Jesus' historicity was doubted?
Your OP went on to define what you mean by 'historical 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''.

The question in the title of your OP can be investigated via the writings of those who wrote about the gospel Jesus story. As I previously wrote - while that could be an interesting exercise it is also a futile exercise - for the simple reason that the numbers of doubters, if found, do not settle the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is the number of doubters.