Iasion

Greetings all,

Sorry if I gave the impression of claiming these sceptics specifically argued Jesus did not exist. None of them quite did that.

I just thought these early sceptics deserved a mention in response to the OP.

Yes, I was wrong about Trypho before - but any discussion of early sceptics of Christian beliefs should include this work.

Celsus certainly assumed Jesus existed - but so what? His detailed attack that the Gospels were fiction based on myth is tantamount to arguing Jesus was also myth.

Porphry similarly called the evangelists "inventors, not historians" - surely casting doubt on the veracity of the Gospels also casts some doubt on the reality on Jesus.

Julian saying Jesus has been "invented" also argues against a historical person.

M. Felix is a very odd case - he seems to know of the incarnation and crucifixion stories, yet dismisses them as NOT being true Christian beliefs. Surely this argues against a historical Jesus.


So,
while its true we have no early witness arguing directly that Jesus was a myth,

we DO have a variety of disagreements and doubts -
* preachers of "OTHER Christs"
* those who deny the resurrection and/or the incarnation
* those who claim the Gospels were fiction
* those who follow a Christianity without a Jesus
* those who deny Jesus "came in the flesh"
* those who claim Jesus was a phantom
* those who claim Jesus was a spiritual entity

all of which argue against a historical Jesus.


Iasion

GakuseiDon

Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement and Odes of Solomon are usually dated as 2nd C documents, and so are dated after the Gospels. Why aren't they evidence for a HJ being gradually mythizised?

Show me the evidence that the pagans of the times regarded Attis/Isis to have lived and died in a sublunar realm.

GakuseiDon

Porphyry was a late 3rd C pagan philosopher. I believe that he called the gospel writers "inventors" because they wrote different accounts of the same things. AFAIK, he didn't deny the existence of a HJ. Do you have any statement that he did? (Surely a pagan accepting the reality of Jesus casts some doubt on the MJ thesis - or does this only go one way?)

Julian was a 4th C pagan. What is the exact quote? Did he deny the existence of a HJ?

How many of these are left??? Can you put names after each of those statements, please? Actual quotes would be nice, too.

GakuseiDon

Of that time and place, there were probably only two people who would have been interested: Philo and Josephus. Philo was probably too early and a little far away, and wasn't really a historian. Outside of a couple of short references (which are usually ignored by Christians and atheists on this board ), Josephus showed no interest in Christianity at all. So, it seems Christianity didn't play much of a part in the popular life of 1st C Judea.

Jayhawker Soule

I disagree with the implication that the Trypho dialogue has any bearing on the question of historicity. If, however, your point was that the opponents of Christianity often "criticised Christian beliefs", then I concur, but find the point somewhat underwhelming.

Iasion

Greetings CA,

Yes,
I did over-reach a bit there - or go off-topic perhaps

I just thoughtTrypho's comments were relevant because he is the very earliest sceptic of Christianity.

Iasion

itsdatruth

It is interesting that both of the Roman historians contemporary with Jesus mention him. They are Suetonius and Tacitus. I was reading this string and I noticed that they wern't mentioned. It surprised me. Plus, there were latter historians as well, such as Josephus. I know the reference to Jesus is normally dismissed as an addition by monks, but a much earlier manuscript dated at 300 A.D. (I believe from Arabia) was found. It includes the Jesus reference, even through it is from a different time and place. The Roman historians weren’t out to create history. True, they were biased, but then again, who isn't? I believe that a uniform bias is a testing factor to tell whether a document is authentic. Later insertions may not carry the bias or a different time of place. The cult of objectivity, you know, began in the modern age.

Jayhawker Soule

I believe that you'll find that Suetonius and Tacitus are early 2nd century CE.

Jayhawker Soule

Greatings. To be honest, I've been squirming on the fence of the HJ debate so long that I have blisters in areas better left unmentioned. I find myself slowly migrating to the 'what possible difference could it make' camp.

SLD

Where do you Christians get this stuff? Neither Suetonius nor Tacitus were contemporaries of Jesus. Suetonius lived from 69 AD to about 120 AD and Tacitus from 55 AD to 117 AD. Tacitus does not mention Jesus, at least not directly. Tacitus mentions Christians, and he does so in writing around 109 AD. Tacitus is our primary source that Nero persecuted the Christians and blamed them for the fire of Rome in 66 AD. His only reference to Jesus was that these Christians were his followers and that he had supposedly been crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was emporer. That's it - a reference to Jesus more than 80 years after the supposed event. Not contemporaneous.

Suetonius was the historian, again, decades after Christ was supposedly around, who claimed that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome on account of the agitation caused by "Chrestus". But that's it! Nothing more. Chrestus is a common greek name - it most likely does not refer to Jesus at all - at least there is no evidence of it.

The point is though, neither of these individuals were contemporaries of Jesus, and wrote histories, not of Jesus, but of later Christians of which there is no doubt. You might as well cite Pliny The Younger's exchange of letters with the Emporer Trajan. These are only proof that there were Christians by at least the latter part of the first century; they are not proof of Jesus or his existence.

SLD