Zeichman

What would constitute positive identification?

To what extent can we positively identify Alexander the Great, or even George W. Bush for that matter in a way which would be moreso than we could for Jesus?

Toto

We have pictures of Alexander and we have his father's tomb and corpse. If we found the lost grave of Alexander, forensic scientists could make an attempt to identify the body, as they do with much older Egyptian mummies and other paleographic human remains.

Zeichman

Are these pictures contemporaneous?

And your standard for this is, and correct me if I'm wrong, the ability to physically identify someone via DNA, archaeological finds, etc?

Amaleq13

Specificity?

I actually started to mention Alexander (and Caesar) as an example of positive identification but I changed my mind because I didn't think it would be necessary.

Even through all the subsequent mythology (or right-wing hero-worship for the other) that is added to the character as he is written about in books, we can identify an actual, specific individual who played a specific role in specific historical events in both cases. Somebody lead that army across the known world and kicked ass everywhere and had cities named after him. Somebody was the President of the U.S. when the Two Towers were destroyed.

Zeichman

Helpful.

Or not.

I'm sorry that I don't understand undefined and unexplained terms.


I'm afraid I still don't understand how this is would exclude Jesus. According to essentially all historicists (save literalist Muslims and a few conspiracy theorists) accept that SOMEONE died on a cross and was later regarded as having been raised by God. Is this sufficient? If not, why not? I still do not understand what you mean. Is this based on scholarly consensus or enthusiastic amateurs like us who enjoy discussing these matters?

Ben C Smith

You are correct. The list now has one item. I imagine it will be two items when somebody gets around to the messiah quote in Justin.

We need to be very clear that if the opponents in 1 John thought that a docetic phantom manifested itself in any way even marginally resembling what Marcion had in his gospel, it is not evidence against an historical person having done what these opponents thought a phantom had done. We are seeking positive evidence against the historicity of a person, not positive evidence for the weird ideas about that person.

Agreed.

Correct.

I modified that argument to deal specifically with historical docetism.

Let us run through a few analogies.

Consider Hernán Cortés, the Spanish explorer. The Aztecs thought he was Quetzalcoatl, the god returning to conquer. Quetzalcoatl is a fiction, IMHO. But if this thread were about Cortés I would be seeking evidence that there never existed a Spanish explorer by that name who conquered the Aztecs. I would be seeking positive evidence against his existence (such as a contemporary or nearly contemporary account claiming that the Spanish tale was a myth, that it was really the Portuegese who conquered Mexico), not evidence that the Aztecs were mistaken about him.

Consider Caesar Augustus. He is often called a god or divine in inscriptions and papyri; one papyrus calls him Zeus the liberator. Zeus is a fiction, IMHO. But if this thread were about Augustus I would be seeking evidence that there never existed a Roman emperor by that name who ruled over an empire. I would be seeking positive evidence against his existence (such as a contemporary or near contemporary account claiming that the Romans invented Augustus as a propaganda tool), not evidence that the persons responsible for the inscriptions and papyri were mistaken about him.

Consider the Phoenix nightlights (sometime in the late nineties). There were some who said they were an alien spacecraft, presumably piloted by extraterrestrials. Such beings are a fiction, IMHO. But does this fictional attribution mean that no lights appeared over Phoenix that night? I saw the footage myself.

Consider Jesus Christ. It is said amongst certain heretical groups that he had no flesh or blood, and that he only appeared to suffer. Such a docetic being is a fiction, IMHO. But this thread is about finding evidence that there never existed a Jew by the name of Jesus who was executed in Palestine and later reported as raised from the dead, not about finding evidence that the gnostics and docetists were mistaken about him.

True. But if Jesus was a human being, then it is only the gnostic or docetic belief about him that is fiction. Since both historicity and mythicism are possible backdrops for such a belief, this belief is in itself evidence for neither.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

The issue, just to be perfectly clear, is not whether mythical or legendary stories were told about Jesus, but rather whether Jesus himself was a myth later historicized. Since Celsus accepted Jesus as an historical person (you knew that, right?), Celsus is not an example of a person who questioned the existence of Jesus.

Your quote from Julian is more interesting to me, as I am not as familiar with him. What are the references, please?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Exactly. So the identification could indeed be as basic as: Somebody was executed in Judea and later thought by his followers to have risen from the dead.

Ben.

Iasion

Sure :-)

Hoffman's Celsus is not online.
Amazon link is here:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195041518/internetinfidels


Hoffman's Porphyry is also not online.
Amazon link is here:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879758899/internetinfidels


My quotes come from my copies,
I could provide a scan of a few pages if you want.


Julian can be found online in many places, e.g. Roger Pearse:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ans_1_text.htm

"spurious" near note 41
"invented" near note 88

"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters"
near note 67

Iasion

Ben C Smith

For everybody on this thread:

I get the impression that, for some, disproving the existence of an historical Jesus amounts to showing that people believed funny things about him, or that vast portions of his alleged biography were fictionalized.

This is a fallacious standard that would disqualify Augustus, Alexander, and hosts of others as historical personages. We are accustomed to thinking of Alexander, for example, in such nakedly historical terms that we tend to forget all the elements of the Alexander romances. There is far more fiction written about Alexander than history. Does that mean that Alexander never existed? Of course not.

Showing that people thought that Jesus was born of a virgin does not even begin to impeach his historicity. Digging up quotes from Celsus to the effect that the gospels are fictions impeaches the gospels, not the historicity of their main character, especially since Celsus himself was trying to separate truth from legend in the life of Jesus (I can dig up plenty of quotes to the effect that the Alexander romances are fictions; will that impeach the historicity of our favorite Macedonian?).

It may well be that once we have cut out all the legends we will be left with nothing, or with something quite stark and bare (like Arthur of Britain?). But that does not make the legends themselves evidence against the historicity of the person at their core.

So far I count one passage on the list of positive evidence against the historicity of Jesus (with the caveat that this passage is quite compatible with heresies known to have existed which did not question an historical Jesus, just some of his attributes).

Let me go ahead and add a second item to the list. I have seen Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 8, used as positive support for a mythical Jesus. (This notion has been amply refuted, but this is the kind of evidence I am looking for on this thread.)

Ben.