Toto

No, at least for me.

There are no ancient critics that we have a record of who made the argument that Jesus didn't exist. There are ancient Christians who appear to have thought that Jesus was not a material entity. When you ask if Jesus "really" existed you are posing a question that was not part of the ancient way of thinking.

The idea that Jesus was "fictional" is probably very modern. The idea that Jesus was a spirit goes back to the second century.

From our modern vantage point, spirits don't "exist." But in the second century, those who thought that Jesus was a spirit believed that he "existed." This is the difficulty I have with your question.

Toto

Note to all from the Grammar Nazi: bioi is a plural noun. The singular is bios.

Burridge's "What are the Gospels?" can be previewed on Google books. Try searching there for bioi, bios, or Lives.

show_no_mercy

Are you claiming that only people who were historical in antiquity had bioi? That someone like Heracles, Asclepius, or other mythological characters did not have a bioi?

show_no_mercy

I don't think any ancient critics ever made this sort of argument for anyone.

gurugeorge

Here are two possibilities (out of many):-

1) Obscure preacher preaches, dies, followers have hysterical visions, start to think of him as divine (I think this is a fairly standard idea for HJ). Some of them write some stuff, and lard over what they remember of the real man with hocus-pocus and mythological crap.

2) Some people have mystical visions and write about a divine entity they believe sojourned on earth in some not-too-distant past. Over time, the earthly part of the sojourn gets elaborated, "filled in" with pseudo-historical detail.

The writings left by 1) and 2) might look quite similar - they would both have elements of what look like quotidian detail and elements of fantasticness.

In both these cases, there are what we moderns would call "fictional" elements - made-up crap, nothing objective, nothing historical.

But some people believed in the reality of their visions (and that's whether we 1) or 2) is true!), others didn't.

Some people believed in the (what we would call) historical reality of mythological entities - others didn't.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with 1) as a hypothesis - except we have no reason to hold it. A reason would be: evidence of a person with the same name as the mythological entity, living roundabout that time, with roundabout the right characteristics when de-mythologized.

Without that reason, something like 2) is just as plausible and fits with the absence of evidence for the guy we need to make 1) a valid hypothesis.

Juststeve

gurugeorge:

The standard you set for accepting choice 1 is a bit disingenuous. I suppose we could go down to the Nazareth Hall Of Records and take a look. Perhaps we will find a birth record, baby boy Jesus, father Joseph, Mother Mary. Would that do it for you or would we need more? Perhaps a photo I.D. To set the hurdle at a level you know can't be crossed simply creates the impression that you are open to evidence when you aren't.

By the standard you set we would be unable to prove that anyone lived in first century Palestine except for perhaps a few Roman functionaries although even in the case of them you would have trouble documenting their existence by the standard you set for Jesus.

Steve

bacht

...which raises the question Andrew addressed, who were the gospels written for? Surely not a mass public market, or the general literate class like Plutarch might have had in mind.

We can assume that the gnostic texts were meant for a small in-group circulation. The early canon? Maybe complimentary copies were sent to Marcion's followers?

aa5874

Are you implying that NO reasearch was done, that NO DATA was collected, that there was NO USE OF equipment like the Telescope when the theory was put forward the earth traveled around the sun?

All we have today is more DATA and more specialsed equipment but visually everything remains the same.

My position is generally based on the material that I have read.

There are numerous Church writings that I have read and it would appear to me that the "Mrmoirs of the Apostles" predated the Canonised Gospels.

But, I do not see any evidence that Justin was AWARE of multiple versions of the Jesus story as presented by Irenaus.

I am not arguing that the author of gLuke used gMatthew. I stated that the common material between gMatthew and gLuke MAY MEAN that gLuke used gMatthew.


Mountainman's poition is different to mine.

My position is that the common material may mean gLuke copied gMatthew. Such a position, as you have stated, is already a competing theory. I have not created any ptoblems.

All proposals can be opposed.

I do not consider that you have created any problems with the assumption or theory that "Q" is from some earlier source.

But, you must admit that without the actual "Q" document that others may be right when they say that gLuke may have simply copied gMatthew.

andrewcriddle

I think John's statement in John chapter 1 is talking about Jesus' baptism and what happened on that occasion. but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he [Jesus]might be revealed to Israel implies that John's baptism is the means by which Jesus was first revealed to Israel. I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit presumably refers to what John witnessed on that occasion.

This indirect allusion to Jesus' baptism by John may illustrate how the issue could not be simply ignored but required very careful handling.

Andrew Criddle

Kapyong

Gday,
Did anyone deny the existence of Osiris?
Or Adam? Or Bacchus? Or Janus? or the phoenix?
or the many dozens of gods and god-men they told stories about?
No.
There was almost no scepticism back then at all.

But what we DO see is all sorts of criticism of Christian beliefs - all the types of attack and criticism that existed back then WERE directed at Christian beliefs.


Firstly,
we see many Christians who did not accept Jesus was a physical being at all, but some sort of emanation or phantom or spirit or what-ever. Philo and the Odes of Solomon in this very same time were already talking about the Logos or word, which was the "son"; as well as the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Wisdom (the virgin)).

2 John
warns of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Marcion,
in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :
“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”
“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

Polycarp's
epistle refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"

Basilides,
in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies"

Bardesanes,
in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :
"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;



So at the very time the Gospel stories were becoming widespread - we see a pattern of Christians who rejected the idea that Jesus ever came in the flesh. A phantom Jesus is not a historical Jesus - phantoms are not real.

Incredibly - Minucius Felix, in mid 2nd century, actually denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations. But his words are rather contorted, and many Christians just don't accept what he says.
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth",
and also:
"Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

Felix rejected entirely the worship of a criminal on a cross, amidst a list of other horrible accusations. The usual excuse from believers is that he meant "no, the Jesus we actually worship was not a criminal". But that reading is the opposite of what his text actually says. This passage is a "smoking gun" indeed as Earl noted.


We also see Christians claiming falsehoods and fictions in the stories :

Dionysius of Corinth,
in late 2nd century,
claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters just as they had changed the "scriptures of the Lord ".

Caius, claimed the truth about Jesus was falsified from the late 2nd century :
"For they say that ... from ... Zephyrinus the truth was falsified ..."

Tatian,
in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:
“Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories”


Finally, when the Gospel stories became known to the wider community, they were attacked as fiction, myths, fabrications...

Celsus,
in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Porphyry,
in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

Julian,
in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”

Jewish writers
attacked Jesus will all sorts of stories -
a black magician conceived during menstruation, bastard son of a Roman soldier, burned his food, worshipped a brick-bat, learned black magic in Egypt now in hell in a vat of boiling shit...



Every sort of attack and criticism that was common to the time was heaped upon Christian and their beliefs. Even some early Christians dod not believe in a physical Jesus.


Kapyong

P.S.
(YES - I myself, personally researched and wrote this list myself. I did it. ME. I was using the name Iasion when I wrote it. My list. Written by ME. I hope that's clear.)