skepticismskeptic

Did Confucius Exist?

Criteria for Establishing the Historicity of Jesus and Confucius Compared:

***Those who argue Jesus was not a historical figure often make the following arguments:
1. References to Jesus’ life are very late.
a. The four Gospels were written around 70-100 C.E. according to mainstream scholarship dating, and second-century C.E. according to others.
b. The four Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.
c. The four Gospels contain legendary elements.
d. Very few contemporary historians make a reference to Jesus
i. Josephus makes two, but one is believed to have interpolations in it, and some here have argued the entire passage is a forgery.
ii. Tacitus, the Roman historian, mentions a Chrestus (some believe this word brings the reliability of this reference into question) from whom the Christians get their name in the second century.
iii. References to Jesus in the Talmud are vague and ambiguous.
iv. Other extra-biblical references to Jesus are very late.
2. Jesus did not write anything himself.
3. Paul, a potential contemporary of Jesus, mentions very little Gospel information implying from the argument from silence Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus.


***Now using this same criteria for determining an individual’s historicity, consider the following information regarding Confucius, the Chinese philosopher who was believed to have founded Confucianism:

“Unfortunately, we don’t have a great deal of verifiable information about the life of Confucius. The sources that do exist are pretty bare bones, and much of what is commonly reported about the man is based on legend and conjecture. The earliest known biography of Confucius is a short entry in the Shiji, a collection of biographies written in the first century B.C.E. by the Chinese historian Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Ch’ien). Four centuries had elapsed between the death of Confucius and the writing of this biography; Sima Qian had to rely on scanty and unreliable sources.
A much better source is the words of Confucius himself. Although he never wrote an autobiography (so far as we know), much of his teaching has been preserved. Confucius himself, though, was not moved to do a great deal of writing; most of what we believe to be his words are really nothing more than a collection of aphorisms written down and preserved by his disciples in the Lun Yu, which we know in English as the Analects of Confucius.
Perhaps the best source for reliable insight into the life and character of Confucius is the Mencius (Meng Zi), which is an exposition of the philosophy of Mencius, a devoted follower of Confucius. Mencius added much to the total picture of what we call “Confucianism�. Though not a contemporary of Confucius-he lived about a century later-Mencius was close enough in time and association to have access to a great deal of reliable information about the man. The Mencius is full of little insights about Confucius.
These three works-the Analects, the Mencius, and the biography of Sima Qian-make up our basic sources of information about Confucius, his life, and his teaching. Other sources exist, but their accuracy is often questionable. From these various sources, taken as a whole, we can abstract a simple, but reasonably credible account of the life of Confucius.�1.

• “…much of what is commonly reported about the man is based on legend and conjecture…�
• “Four centuries had elapsed between the death of Confucius and the writing of this biography.�
• “…he never wrote an autobiography (so far as we know)�
• “…what we believe to be his words are really nothing more than a collection of aphorisms written down…�
• “…and preserved by his disciples in the Lun Yu.�
• “Though not a contemporary of Confucius-he lived about a century later-Mencius was close enough in time and association to have access to a great deal of reliable information about the man.�




***In light of this information, do you think a historical Confucius existed?



1. Bresnan, Patrick S, DeAnza College. Awakening: An Introduction to the History of Eastern Thought: Second Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003, 1999. Page 127.


-Skepticismskeptic

Lucretius

]

Actually Tacitus uses the name Christus but calls the followers Chrestianos
Suetonius uses the name Chrestus but seems to imply that this was an actual living person who was causing trouble at a time too late to have been the Jesus Christ in the Bible , Chrestus being a fairly common name for a slave at the time.

Duke Leto

Two minor points:

1) With Confucious, we actually HAVE Primary Source material in the form of the Analects. Even if it is only attributed to him. So even if there was no Kung Fu Tzu per se, there was an author of the Analects the subsequent generations referenced as him. Consequently, there was an author of the writings of Confucious, we identify that person with Confucious, ergo there was a historical person whom we identify as Confucious.

2) Nothing that Confucious is supposed to have done by his followers is inherently ludicrous or impossible. No Birth in different years, no virgin birth, no scourging the Temple moneychangers right under the noses the headquarters of the Roman garrison, no ressurection, no theological gobbledygook. This is in stark contrast to Lao Tzu.

Dark Knight Bob

The hagakure refers to him in some passages but again that's not a very reliable source in itself. It's an english translation after all and has no indications to specific dates.

Toto

Confucius probably did not exist. According to Catholic scholar Charlotte Allen, he was invented by Jesuit missionaries as a founding figure of the philosophy that they found in China.

The article that I cited in this post is not longer available without a subscription. But you might find some interest in this previous thread on this very topic.

spin

I don't care.

And if the question itself were meant to be taken seriously, I'd say that it was simply off-topic.

Apparently though, it was an attempt at irony, making the pitch to the intelligent reader, if you wouldn't relegate Confucius to non-existence, why should you do the same with Jesus? C'mon, let's be consistent.

I'm skeptical about the skepticism of Skepticismskeptic.


spin

skepticismskeptic

Duke Leto,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the historicity of Confucius in light of the excerpt above. There are just a few points and a question I would like to bring up in response.



Not really. We have hearsay. It is claimed that his disciples recorded what they claimed were his actual words.

According to the literary excerpt above:

“….most of what we believe to be his words are really nothing more than a collection of aphorisms written down and preserved by his disciples in the Lun Yu, which we know in English as the Analects of Confucius…�



It isn’t attributed to him.

According to the literary excerpt above:

“Confucius himself, though, was not moved to do a great deal of writing…�



See comments above.



See comments above.

See comments above.



So the issue for you is not so much the amount of documentation we have of Confucius’ existence, or how late, but whether or not he is accredited with characteristics that you consider impossible or that you find irrational?

Also, interestingly the excerpt above stated:

“…much of what is commonly reported about the man (Confucius) is based on legend and conjecture…�


-Skepticisimskeptic

Chris Weimer

For those who argue a mythical Jesus, they pinpoint many references to the mythological makeup of such a person. Where is the mythological makeup for Confucius? We have motives for the Jesus myth, where's the motives for the Confucius myth? By far, you have a lot to go. Interesting subject, but go discuss it with the Chinese forums, not the Biblical forums. :banghead:

skepticismskeptic

Dark Knight Bob,

I think the text you bring up is associated with a good point. For all we know the character of Confucius certainly could have already been created by the time this source was compiled.

-Skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

Toto,

Thank you for providing the links to those other threads about Confucius. They were very fascinating, and made valid points.

In gratitude,

Skepticismskeptic