lpetrich

I don't think that Aristophanes's The Clouds counts against Socrates's historicity. It was a satire, and Aristophanes could have been satirizing someone he knew to be real.

But how accurate Aristophanes's depiction of Socrates was is another question entirely; Aristophanes could have included satires of various other philosophers in his satire of Socrates.

Gamera

About historical events? Perhaps. More or less current events are of great important to political power and so need to be massaged. Further, it's very important to political power to obtain legitimacy by means of "history" -- thus, classic pagan leaders claimed to be descended from gods or some great hero, and whole societies, like Rome, claimed a special history.

A religious agenda doesn't necessary bear on current events or doctoring history to legitimize the present. Indeed, religious power often is at odds with political power and might have a motive to speak the truth about how the powerful got their power.

Gamera

If a character called Jesus, purported to be a religious leader, appeared in a 1st century play would that redound to his historicity or lack thereof?

Toto

This doesn't seem to apply here. Christianity in particular depended on history to legitimate both its doctrine and orthodox church authority.

That would defininitely redound to his historicity. Alexander is more likely to be historical because we have records from his enemies. With Jesus, we only have records of his existence from his followers.

Doug Shaver

You mean, to speak the truth about how political people got their power? Many religious people have power like a politican could only fantasize about.

And who do you suppose might have a motive to speak the truth about how religious people got their power?

PopeInTheWoods

If he appeared in a first century satire it would support his historicity. As stated above, satire works best when its target is well-known.

Gamera

Isn't this circular? How do you know it's a satire unless you assume the historicity of the characters in it?

Gamera

But clearly the early Christians and the authors of the earliest mss did not. And that's the point.

They clearly would have an agenda to fabricate how religious people got their power, just as political leaders construct narrative "histories" to legitimate their power. But of course early Christian authors had little or no religious power, and absolutely no poltical power. Further, political power focuses on the realm of history as history, constructing narratives that legitimate the powers that be. Religious power often has a motive to deconstruct that. And in fact the early Christian text do that -- Paul gives an "alternate" history of how and why leaders have power. That alternate history is at odds with the various nostalgic histories Rome wrote for itself.

Finally and most importantly, to use "historical writings" which are generally under the sway of poliltical leaders to delegitimize religious histories, like the gospels, is totally invalid under my analysis, since both are the result of agendas that construct narrative. There is nothing more historical about historical writiings than religious writings.

Gamera

Ultimately, yes, when the church gained political power. But there is no doubt that the earliest christian texts are before that time, and at the very least the christian community that produced those narratives were not in favor with the political power of the time.

Well, I suspect if you scrutinize the references to Alexander from his enemies you'll find a mss history that is no more reliable and no closer in time to the events than the mss history of those that oppose Christianity, such as Josephus' mention of Jesus, or rabbinical references. I haven't investigated the matter, but my recollection is that the mss that refer to Alexander are very young and nowhere as near in time to Alexander as the Christian scriptures are to Jesus. And of course people refer to mythic enemies in the past all the time. I might mention the relative recent McCarthy hearings as an example of mythic enemies at play.

Nobody bothers to scrutinize the mss history that makes up the Alexander narrative, because everybody assumes Alexander was a real figure. By the way, it's fairly easy to apply comparative religious theory to Alexander and argue that his life (as recorded in texts) is a "myth" that derived from prior myths (something Alexander apparently even cultivated). There is more "evidence" for a Mythic Alexander than there is of a Mythic Jesus.

PopeInTheWoods

Not circular I think, as you can satirize fictional characters (like Uncle Sam) too, so you can have satire without historical people. But having preacher Jesus appear in a satire around his supposed lifetime would be greater - though not conclusive - evidence for historicity than not having such a work.

I just looked at your original question again and see that it only asked about "1st century", somehow I read that as pertaining to Jesus' lifetime. I think such a work carry greater weight if it were dated at 30CE than at 80CE.