ynquirer

I’d agree in that the primary suspects are religious figures, but not for the reason you say.

To begin with, this is not true of most of religions, which drop before hand every possible claim of historicity. That’s the case of Hinduism, of Taoism, probably of Buddhism, and most of animist beliefs and kinds of chamanism. Isis and Osiris seem to have been thought of as living on earth at the very beginning of time, but that is different from believing they lived from such year to such another one. Even though orthodox Jews may think that Moses was a historical character - so did Freud BTW - Philo and the allegorical school of Alexandria believed rather the opposite. Not many religions count among those claiming that the founder was a historical person. Christianity and Islamism are two conspicuous examples.

The reason you give - followers have much more of a stake in the history of their heroes - is ominous. Together with people that would forge history in support of their religious beliefs, there are and have always being many other religious people that rank truth as they see it higher than reassurance. At the end of the day, intelligent people, however true-believers, as you say, know that direct commands from God are rather rare, and that most of what interpreters of His will purport to be such commands - including the forgery of history - can possibly be mere strategies for manipulation.

Yet manipulation reigns as well the other side of the fence. The very reason why religious figures are primary suspects of being pure myths is not what you say, or not only. Another important reason, perhaps even more important, is the zeal of attendant true believers of competing religions. Julian denounced Christianity as a myth not because he was a rational analyst of historical facts, but because he wished a restoration of paganism.

Likewise, much of the MJ-ism is based not so much on historical, rigorous analysis, as many of the threads of this forum show, but on the belligerence of nostalgic admirers of the classical antiquity, who have not yet understood why and how Christianity could overcome that world. Manipulation is the only explanation they can find. That is why the founder of such a religion is a primary suspect of being a pure myth: because a myth rendered historical fact implies manipulation from the start.

angela2

Arius. We don't have any of his original writings yet no one doubts that he existed. This confidence is based on the work of his followers and critics.

ynquirer

Alexander the Great. The legend claims Aristotle was his teacher, yet the Philosopher is silent about. The earliest extant source on Alexander’s life is Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote in the mid-first century BC - almost three hundred years after his death. There are referenced a number of previous works, some of them contemporary of Alexander, but they might be false references to support a claim of historicity. There are also coins and statues of the hero, though there also are also such reproductions of Zeus and nobody claims Zeus ever existed as a historical person.

A especial suspicion deserves the fact that the earliest source, Diodorus, wrote at a time that rendered the notice of Alexander and his deeds most serviceable, as propaganda, in the political reforms for Rome to travel from republic to empire.

gstafleu

Mohamed seems the most secure of the lot. That's what I concluded from the thread(s) on his historicity that we had a while ago. But is he as secure as Caesar? probably not.

Moses seems pure mythology to me. Of course he is so long ago that I doubt if it is ever possible to say something definitive. Why, for example, would Moses be in a firmer position than Adam and Eve? Or Odysseus or Herakles or...?

As for Buddha, going by Price's article Buddhists see him as mythical, and that moots the whole issue for me: if Buddha's religion doesn't see him as historical, why would we bother to see him so?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Well, we have Homer. A bit outside the current envelope, but I seem to remember that it isn't clear if there really was a (or one) author called Homer.

Of course it is not clear who except classicists would care about that .

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

The answer to that is probably Yes But. I would suggest that, if one finds such a tenuous reference to a person, there is no reason to suspect "foul play", unless there is reason to suspect foul play . As I said above, for religious figures such a suspicion is a reasonable starting point. For a general Bulliboius, mentioned only once by Tacitus in a work for which the earliest known MS is 8C, such a suspicion is not as reasonable.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman

Up until this stage, I had agreed with everything you had written.

Firstly, Julian did not denounce christianity as a "myth".
Do people in the northern hemisphere have a problem with
the word "fiction"? It seems politically correct to avoid the
use of the latter word. However, in the case of Julian,
although he uses the former word "myth" many times in
his treatise "Against the fabrication of the Galilaeans",
he reserved explicitly the latter word, "fiction" for his
denouncement of christianity.

Secondly, I want to ask you one question. What evidence,
or citations, or gut-feelings would you offer me in support
of the claim that "Julian denounced Christianity as a fiction
not because he was a rational analyst of historical facts."

To be fair, I will state my position at the moment ...

My position is that, if christianity was the invention of
Constantine, and was implemented as a new official Roman
religion with effect from Nicaea, then Julian in fact is right
in denouncing Christianity as a fiction, because he was a
rational analyst of historical facts.



So what is your historical analysis
of Apollonius of Tyana, and how do
you think he fits into the picture?

mountainman

There are a number of issues not yet raised which I feel
are relevant to your original setting ....
1) Time itself needs to be factors into all questions about the
"theoretical historicity" of any nominated figure, in that the
further back in the past you go, the more uncertainty must
necessarily exist. Thus my often-mentioned caution that the
idea of historicity is best applied as a comparitive, and only
between figures who lived at approximately the same time.

2) Technological innovations will continue to progress that will
impact upon archeological analysis techniques, and possibly
render useless the above point (1). By 2050, if people survive,
there may be new scientific procedures able to be applied to
existing and newly discovered archeological evidence. Perhaps
some improvement in carbon dating process, for example.

Both these issues will effect the outcome of your scenario.

rlogan

One can't. Pretty clear what's up with a baseless swipe like that.

**********

This theme comes up repeatedly, yes.

Do we see historians running around with "boo hoo you're all so unfair to my hero" business?

This whole line of "reasoning" is a construct of Christian apologia. Historians don't "defend" the existence of Ceasar by saying there is at least as much evidence for him as there is for Jesus. They merely discuss the subject matter.

We only see this in the other direction - Christians claiming that there is more evidence for Jesus as there is for Caesar. (And to a lesser degree HJers making less stark insinuations)

When it is not a religious figure, and merely historical inquiry, if the existence or life is questionable I seem to find it being stated frankly for the most part.

lpetrich

I recall Richard Carrier once making analogies with Aesop (that fable teller) and Ebion (the supposed founder of the Ebionites, an early Xian sect) as people who are likely mythical.

More generally, founder figures and other such heroes tend to get lots of mythology associated with them, and it would be surprising if Jesus Christ was an exception. So if there was a historical Jesus Christ, distinguishing fact from fiction about him could be difficult.