Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
So if he WASN'T the Son of God....
Options
Comments
-
Is that the case for the proposition?Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »A lot of verbiage there but modern scholars disagree, as any reading of the literature would prove. You’ve presented the case for the opposition but not the case for proposition.
I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus - after all it’s nothing to do with his divinity. I believe he existed and was not divine (obviously) and was preaching to the Jews only. I don’t think it’s clear either way whether he claimed to be the messiah. Paul was the founder of gentile Christianity. However he was pretty sure that Jesus existed and in fact had arguments with people who knew Jesus. To fake all this takes a lot of effort.
If so, I'm not seeing how that outweighs oldrnwisr's arguments.
What evidence do you have that Paul was having arguments with people who knew Jesus and how do you know that they actually did.
If the extent of it is that Paul just said he did, then that is incredibly easy to fake.0 -
Is that the case for the proposition?
If so, I'm not seeing how that outweighs oldrnwisr's arguments.
I don’t expect anybody in this forum would. It’s slightly cultish and he’s a cult leader. However, as I said, my view is the general scholarly consensus these days.What evidence do you have that Paul was having arguments with people who knew Jesus and how do you know that they actually did.
If the extent of it is that Paul just said he did, then that is incredibly easy to fake.
Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.
Of course you are going to reject both.
The problem is that you guys need a counter theory. I’m never clear of you think Paul even exists or not.0 -
So what's the difficulty in faking it?Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.0 -
Adamocovic wrote: »I had always assumed there was enough historical writings that suggested a person (Named Jesus or not) claiming to be the son of God existed. That it was just his claim that was the big debating point, not his existence. Have to say the posts have been very interesting.
Maybe it's just me but seems quite difficult to, with certainty, say which is correct and which is not.
Well, here's the thing.
We've only scratched the surface of this topic with a discussion of the non-Biblical references to Jesus. Even once you get through discussing all of those there's an even bigger question to answer. Why do we have no writings at all from the people who were a) in the right time and place to have known about Jesus and b) had an interest in writing about topics which would have featured Jesus? Take Seneca, for example. Seneca the Younger was a philosopher, writer and politician. The main focus of Seneca's writing is ethics and yet he makes no mention of Jesus' radical rethink of Jewish ethics. Secondly, he wrote an encyclopedia of sorts covering all sorts of natural phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes etc. and yet makes no mention of the Star of Bethlehem, the worldwide darkness at Jesus' crucifixion or the multiple earthquakes attendant to it. Finally, in On Superstition, Seneca talks about every known religion, nitpicking each one and yet makes no mention of Christianity which later Christian sources said was spreading rapidly through the empire at that time. Seneca was in the right place and time and sufficiently interested in the topic to mention Jesus and yet he doesn't. His older brother Gallio is even mentioned in Acts as the judge who hears Pauls trial and throws it out of court and yet no mention of Christianity. In fact, Seneca's silence is so deafening that St. Augustine himself tries to explain away the omission in his book City of God.
The other problem, as has been discussed at length before is that the gospels are works of deliberate fiction. So, they don't help to advance the overall quest for the truth about Jesus' existence at all. Once you discard the gospels you're left in a state of indeterminacy and the whole conversation takes a turn in the direction of epistemology and we have to ask ourselves how we determine if Jesus existence without any concrete evidence. Is believing in a real Jesus the default position or should it be?0 -
Well, here's the thing.
We've only scratched the surface of this topic with a discussion of the non-Biblical references to Jesus. Even once you get through discussing all of those there's an even bigger question to answer. Why do we have no writings at all from the people who were a) in the right time and place to have known about Jesus and b) had an interest in writing about topics which would have featured Jesus? Take Seneca, for example. Seneca the Younger was a philosopher, writer and politician. The main focus of Seneca's writing is ethics and yet he makes no mention of Jesus' radical rethink of Jewish ethics. Secondly, he wrote an encyclopedia of sorts covering all sorts of natural phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes etc. and yet makes no mention of the Star of Bethlehem, the worldwide darkness at Jesus' crucifixion or the multiple earthquakes attendant to it. Finally, in On Superstition, Seneca talks about every known religion, nitpicking each one and yet makes no mention of Christianity which later Christian sources said was spreading rapidly through the empire at that time. Seneca was in the right place and time and sufficiently interested in the topic to mention Jesus and yet he doesn't. His older brother Gallio is even mentioned in Acts as the judge who hears Pauls trial and throws it out of court and yet no mention of Christianity. In fact, Seneca's silence is so deafening that St. Augustine himself tries to explain away the omission in his book City of God.
The other problem, as has been discussed at length before is that the gospels are works of deliberate fiction. So, they don't help to advance the overall quest for the truth about Jesus' existence at all. Once you discard the gospels you're left in a state of indeterminacy and the whole conversation takes a turn in the direction of epistemology and we have to ask ourselves how we determine if Jesus existence without any concrete evidence. Is believing in a real Jesus the default position or should it be?
I can appreciate people having an opinion that Jesus, and truth be told my knowledge of Seneca's writings is not as extensive as yours.
I was under the impression that the baptism and crucifixion was almost universally accepted by scholars, mainly due to the accounts from Tacitus and Josephus, which I have seen you've previously put across your arguments against.
Regarding the comment about why most famous scholars from that period had not written about a person claiming to be son of God I had read a report before when they took a list of the most famous writers credited for the period. Some had reasonable reasons as to why he would not have been discussed by them, others had brief mentions but not much details, Seneca was one of the writers the author wasn't entirely sure of.
Anyway, I'd consider myself open minded regarding my thoughts on his existence but I just see myself believing that a person claiming to be Christ did exist. I know people may try change my mind on this, and I've no issue with that.
I do apologise that we've strayed off topic a bit. The debate if Jesus wasn't the son of God what was he is interesting at times. I've heard suggestions such as a con artist to a crazy man who believed he was and through time the stories were exaggerated.0 -
Advertisement
-
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »A lot of verbiage there but modern scholars disagree, as any reading of the literature would prove. You’ve presented the case for the opposition but not the case for proposition.
Well, firstly you've misrepresented what the consensus actually is and secondly, you've offered no explanation or argument why we should listen to the consensus in the first place.
It's fine to opine that there is a consensus but when it can be readily demonstrated that the consensus position is wrong as I've shown above, then you need to offer a counterargument to either rebut my points or otherwise show why the consensus is reliable. You've done neither.
As far as a consensus position goes, its stretching the term just a little bit to describe the scholarly position on the Testimonium as a consensus. There are a wide variety of scholarly positions on the subject from completely fabricated (G.A. Wells, Arthur Drews, Kenneth Olson, Peter Kirby), through partially authentic (Paul Maier, Zvi Baras, Andreas Kostenberger, Craig Blomberg) to fully authentic (most fundamentalist Christian scholars). However, even among those that accept the partially authentic position (the "consensus" position), there is wide disagreement. There have even been different approaches to reconstructing the original text with some scholars favouring negative reconstruction (removing the troublesome phrases) while others favour positive reconstruction, adding in the bits they think sound most like Josephus.
The consensus reconstruction looks like this:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
However, as I've already pointed out, this reduced testimonium does little to resolve the problems of the full testimonium and many scholars have pointed this out. Kenneth Olson, for example points out the textual similarities between the testimonium and Eusebius' writing. For example, the word used in the testimonium for "doer" as in "doer of wonderful deeds" is poietes which Josephus only uses to refer to a poet. However, Eusebius uses it in the sense in which it is used in the testimonium. Similarly, Michael Hardwick in "Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius" points out that the number of early Christian writers who quote Josephus in their writings and yet make no mention of the testimonium is extensive including Justin Martyr, Theophilus Antiochenus, Melito of Sardis, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Lactantius and the aforementioned Origen. Now one or two of these making that kind of oversight would be reasonable but the fact that nobody, not one Christian writer for 200 years makes reference to the passage is highly suspicious.
Opining that there is a consensus position is fine, but the fact that there is a consensus is not an argument in itself and certainly not when there are so many flaws in that position. But since there is a consensus position it should be trivially easy for you to either reference a work which resolves all of the problems I've outlined or deal with those problems yourself.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus - after all it’s nothing to do with his divinity. I believe he existed and was not divine (obviously) and was preaching to the Jews only. I don’t think it’s clear either way whether he claimed to be the messiah.
Well, sorry to disappoint you but I'm not out to disprove the existence of Jesus. In fact, when I started down this road I was still a Catholic, trying to discover whether the Jesus story was true or not. In the meantime, the rest has been debates with strident Christians who want to exist that, variously, the existence of Jesus is a historical fact and that the gospels are eyewitness accounts which are completely historically reliable.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Paul was the founder of gentile Christianity. However he was pretty sure that Jesus existed and in fact had arguments with people who knew Jesus, at least according to the literature. To fake all this takes a lot of effort.
Well, for what its worth I'm mostly inclined to agree with you. I've been reading a lot more mythicist literature lately and while people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier do an excellent job of unpicking the gospels, the positive case for mythicism is sorely lacking. There becomes a point when you've thrown enough evidence against the gospels that you're just flogging a dead horse. So, when you eventually discard the gospels, you have to build a positive case for mythicism, which to date has had two major flaws, the existence of any pre-Pauline evidence of said beliefs (the best Carrier has got is The Ascension of Isaiah) and the Pauline epistles themselves and Paul's conception of Jesus. It's not at all clear when we collate the various Jesus anecdotes in Paul's authentic writings whether Paul actually believed in a historical figure or not. There's not enough evidence to sway the argument in one direction or the other.
Having said that, its hard to take Paul's interactions with the other apostles at face value. We have no writings from any of these apostles and our traditional picture of them is coloured by the later arrival of the gospels. So there's a kind of Mandela effect in play here whereby most people assume that Peter and James and John knew a real Jesus because they feature in Paul's writings and the gospels said they knew a real Jesus. When you set the gospels aside all you've got left is Paul arguing with other people who are also preaching about Jesus. But Paul never outlines how these people obtained their information about Jesus. Take Peter, for example. In the authentic Pauline epistles Peter only receives 9 mentions, once as Peter and 8 times as Cephas. The only mention of Peter's interaction with Jesus in the authentic epistles is 1 Corinthians 15:5 where Paul says that Jesus appeared to Cephas. However, since Paul uses the same word (ophthe) to describe Jesus' appearance to Peter as he does his own (which was a vision), it is not at all clear that Peter knew a real Jesus. At least not from what Paul has to say.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »It’s easy to explain Tacitus’s mistakes. He was writing after the event and so he got some details wrong. He’s explaining what Christians themselves say re the crucifixion (so he doesn’t need records) and was mistaken or was incorrect about who Pilate was. It’s clear he’s just recounting what he believes Christians then believed. Do you believe that Christians didn’t exist at the time?
I think you've misread or misinterpreted my point. It's not that the passage in Tacitus is fake, its that the mistakes it contains are not likely to have occurred if Tacitus was using a Roman record as his source. Like you say he's simply reporting what Christians are saying. So this is useless as an independent confirmation of Jesus' existence.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.
Of course you are going to reject both.
The problem is that you guys need a counter theory. I’m never clear of you think Paul even exists or not.
OK, two minor points here. Firstly, yes obviously Paul existed.
Secondly, Acts is worthy of rejection because it is filled with mistakes and contradictions. Despite having supposedly been written by Paul's travelling companion Luke, Acts makes numerous biographical mistakes about Paul including a contradictory conversion story. Compare and contrast Acts 9 with Galatians 1 and 2 for example. Also, throughout Luke and Acts there is evidence of extensive borrowing by Luke from Josephus. The author of Luke-Acts is clearly not an eyewitness and his familiarity with Judaism in general is limited. In Acts 26:5 he describes Paul as living as a Pharisee, "the strictest sect of our religion" which any Jew would recognise as false, the Essenes being the strictest Jewish sect.0 -
Interesting that the Irish form Iosa is a lot closer to the original version of the name, as is the Arabic form which also sounds quite similar. Jesus is a prophet in Islam as well as being "up there" as an incarnation/main character in Christianity.His Aramaic name is, or likely to have been, Yeshua, or Joshua if you Anglicise it.0 -
I can't speak for oldrnwisr, but for myself, it's got nothing to do with certain types of anybody trying to disprove the existence of one figure or another.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »I don’t get why a certain type of atheist want to disprove the existence of Jesus [...]
On the contrary, it has everything to do with what I suppose you could call the semi-voyeuristic spectacle of religious people - and I'm not including you here - who declaim or imply the perfection of their religion while unfamiliar with the imperfection of the blocks which hold it up in the air.0 -
Paul never claimed to have met Jesus though; he was only born around the time of Jesus' alleged ascent into heaven. So by the time he had grown up and converted, his only interaction was with hearsay and the followers of a cult whose founder was long gone.Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »Well there’s actually two sources there - Acts and Paul himself.
Of course you are going to reject both.
Not that much different to you or me, then.0 -
Paul was likely born at around the time of Jesus's birth, not his death. He and Jesus would have been contemporaries, though they never met. (If they had, Paul would certainly have mentioned it in his writings.) Paul's letters start from a time about 20-25 years after the crucifixion, and it's evident that by this time there are already organised Christian communities in many places (Who else is Paul writing to?) who already have a considerable body of tradition/belief/memory of who Jesus was, what he said, what he did.Paul never claimed to have met Jesus though; he was only born around the time of Jesus' alleged ascent into heaven. So by the time he had grown up and converted, his only interaction was with hearsay and the followers of a cult whose founder was long gone.
Not that much different to you or me, then.
So the problem with the idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is this; it's a fiction that must have been created and propagated well within the lifetime of large numbers of people who would be well positioned to know, first-hand, that it was a complete fiction. And yet not only is it widely accepted, but we have no evidence at all that anybody at the time ever suggested that it was a fiction. No writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction survive. No writings survive which refer to any writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction. In all the defensive writings we have from Christian source which attempt to vindicate Christianity against various attacks, none at all seem to be defending against an attack based on the fictitiousness of Jesus.
All of this is rather hard to explain if, in fact, Jesus is completely fictional. In fact, those who suggest that he was fictional seem to be embracing a theory for which there is considerably less evidence than the rival theory, that he was historical.
The parsimonious explanation for what we know about the early Jesus movement is that Jesus was a historical figure, and I think this is what the majority of scholars of the period consider to be the case.0 -
Advertisement
-
Are there examples of any contemporary scholars directly refuting the existence of fictional figures around the time that they supposedly existed?Peregrinus wrote: »Paul was likely born at around the time of Jesus's birth, not his death. He and Jesus would have been contemporaries, though they never met. (If they had, Paul would certainly have mentioned it in his writings.) Paul's letters start from a time about 20-25 years after the crucifixion, and it's evident that by this time there are already organised Christian communities in many places (Who else is Paul writing to?) who already have a considerable body of tradition/belief/memory of who Jesus was, what he said, what he did.
So the problem with the idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is this; it's a fiction that must have been created and propagated well within the lifetime of large numbers of people who would be well positioned to know, first-hand, that it was a complete fiction. And yet not only is it widely accepted, but we have no evidence at all that anybody at the time ever suggested that it was a fiction. No writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction survive. No writings survive which refer to any writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction. In all the defensive writings we have from Christian source which attempt to vindicate Christianity against various attacks, none at all seem to be defending against an attack based on the fictitiousness of Jesus.
All of this is rather hard to explain if, in fact, Jesus is completely fictional. In fact, those who suggest that he was fictional seem to be embracing a theory for which there is considerably less evidence than the rival theory, that he was historical.
The parsimonious explanation for what we know about the early Jesus movement is that Jesus was a historical figure, and I think this is what the majority of scholars of the period consider to be the case.0 -
Well, you'd be looking for a fictional figure who, in or shortly after his own time, is widely believed to have been real, and is the focus of a religious or political movement which is invested in his reality.Are there examples of any contemporary scholars directly refuting the existence of fictional figures around the time that they supposedly existed?
Unless you can identify such a figure, the question of whether his reality was refuted at the time doesn't really arise.
Do you have someone in mind?
(And, if you don't have someone in mind, does that perhaps suggest that the widespread and uncontradicted acceptance of fictional characters as real by their contemporaries is an uncommon and improbable occurrence?)0 -
I don't have anyone in mind.Peregrinus wrote: »Well, you'd be looking for a fictional figure who, in or shortly after his own time, is widely believed to have been real, and is the focus of a religious or political movement which is invested in his reality.
Unless you can identify such a figure, the question of whether his reality was refuted at the time doesn't really arise.
Do you have someone in mind?
I kind of imagined that you did given that your argument seems to hinge on the thought that scholars must directly refute the existence of such fictional figures.
Just because such refutations don't exist, it doesn't follow that the person must then be real.0 -
I'm not talking about scholars refuting the existence of Christ. I'm talking about contemporary opponents of Christianity, of whom we know there were many, pointing out that he was fictional, if in fact he was fictional.I don't have anyone in mind.
I kind of imagined that you did given that your argument seems to hinge on the thought that scholars must directly refute the existence of such fictional figures.
Just because such refutations don't exist, it doesn't follow that the person must then be real.
The contemporary opponents of Christianity, remember, included the Temple authorities, who were supposed to have hunted him down and handed him over to the Romans to be crucified. If he had been fictional, they would know that none of this had ever happened. They would hardly have been behind about pointing this out. Similarly, the Pharisee movement would have had a strong interest in pointing to the fictionality of Christ, if indeed he had been fictional.0 -
Do you have an example of something like this happening for anyone else?Peregrinus wrote: »I'm not talking about scholars refuting the existence of Christ. I'm talking about contemporary opponents of Christianity, of whom we know there were many, pointing out that he was fictional, if in fact he was fictional.
These are a lot of presumptions on your part.Peregrinus wrote: »The contemporary opponents of Christianity, remember, included the Temple authorities, who were supposed to have hunted him down and handed him over to the Romans to be crucified. If he had been fictional, they would know that none of this had ever happened. They would hardly have been behind about pointing this out. Similarly, the Pharisee movement would have had a strong interest in pointing to the fictionality of Christ, if indeed he had been fictional.
First you presume that they didn't do so and either such writing was lost or suppressed.
You presume that they would indeed think that it bares pointing out he was fictional at the time.
You also presume that they themselves didn't simply assume that Jesus was a real person and that they never thought to question it.
There's a ton of explanations for why they wouldn't claim he's fictional.
Your claim that he must exist because they didn't doesn't really follow because it's not the only, nor most likely explanation.0 -
My point is that such a question can't even arise unless there was another fictional character widely taken as real by his own contemporaries, and treated as the focus of a religious or political movement.Do you have an example of something like this happening for anyone else?
Ad if there is no other figure, if a fictional Jesus would in fact be unique in history, that in itself tells us something about he likelihood of a fictional Jesus, doesn't it?
I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you restate?These are a lot of presumptions on your part.
First you presume that they didn't do so and either such writing was lost or suppressed.
Of course it would bear pointing out. How would it not?You presume that they would indeed think that it bares pointing out he was fictional at the time.
Why would they assume Jesus to be real when they knew him to be fictional? They themselves are characters in the stories about Jesus; if the stories are complete fiction, they know it.You also presume that they themselves didn't simply assume that Jesus was a real person and that they never thought to question it.
To be honest, I'm not seeing any very plausible explanations.There's a ton of explanations for why they wouldn't claim he's fictional.
Plus, any explanations that there are are speculative. None of them are supported by any evidence at all. And we can't, with consistency, argue that the historical Jesus is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted, but explanations which support a fictional Jesus should be accepted, even though they are completely unevidenced.
When did I claim that he must exist?Your claim that he must exist because they didn't doesn't really follow because it's not the only, nor most likely explanation.
What I am saying is that the "fictional Jesus hypothesis" looks to me to be much weaker, much less probable, and much less well-evidenced than the "historical Jesus hypothesis". The historical Jesus hypothesis is therefore more likely to be correct (and is, in fact, widely accepted by current scholars of the period.)0 -
Then by that token, you can't really say how critics of such a movement would react.Peregrinus wrote: »My point is that such a question can't even arise unless there was another fictional character widely taken as real by his own contemporaries, and treated as the focus of a religious or political movement.
There's lots of examples of fictional people who are and were widely believed.Peregrinus wrote: »Ad if there is no other figure, if a fictional Jesus would in fact be unique in history, that in itself tells us something about he likelihood of a fictional Jesus, doesn't it?
It's possibly that these people did raise such objections, but these objections were lost or suppressed.Peregrinus wrote: »I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you restate?
Because perhaps they are addressing people that already knew that he was fictional and/or wouldn't accept the proof that he was. Perhaps they thought it was a better tactic to address other points more relevant to his followers and the growing political movement.Peregrinus wrote: »Of course it would bear pointing out. How would it not?
That's kind of your assumption that they were the ones who were actually supposed to have met Jesus. It could be that they assumed other people had, but they never verified it. Or they were just not the same people at all.Peregrinus wrote: »Why would they assume Jesus to be real when they knew him to be fictional? They themselves are characters in the stories about Jesus; if the stories are complete fiction, they know it.
Or maybe the stories about Jesus just never happened...?
We already know that at the very least, the gospels and early church claim things happened that didn't really happen.
Do the critics you refer to mention the fictionality of these fictional events?
If not, does this mean that events we know didn't happen are somehow now more likely to have happened?
Yes, I know. But your explanation is likewise speculative and not really evidenced either. It's based on a lot of supposition and your conclusion doesn't follow.Peregrinus wrote: »To be honest, I'm not seeing any very plausible explanations.
Plus, any explanations that there are are speculative. None of them are supported by any evidence at all. And we can't, with consistency, argue that the historical Jesus is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted, but explanations which support a fictional Jesus should be accepted, even though they are completely unevidenced.
There are other reasons why early critics of the movement wouldn't have claimed Jesus was fictional.
Him being real is only one possible explanation.
Well you're not really putting forward much in the way of evidence for the historical Jesus and you're not doing much to counter the arguments Oldrnwisr has put forward.Peregrinus wrote: »When did I claim that he must exist?
What I am saying is that the "fictional Jesus hypothesis" looks to me to be much weaker, much less probable, and much less well-evidenced than the "historical Jesus hypothesis". The historical Jesus hypothesis is therefore more likely to be correct (and is, in fact, widely accepted by current scholars of the period.)0 -
No. We can't say how they did react, but we can certainly think meaningfully about how they would react.Then by that token, you can't really say how critics of such a movement would react.
(Ironically, it's the proponents of the fictional Jesus hypothesis who have to say how the opponents of the Jesus movement did react.)
By their own contemporaries? If there are "lots of examples", you should have no difficulty in offering, say, three?There's lots of examples of fictional people who are and were widely believed.
Yes, it's possible. But there is zero evidence for it, and you can't simulatenously reject a hypothesis on the grounds that it is supported by limited evidence, but embrace one for which there is zero evidence.It's possibly that these people did raise such objections, but these objections were lost or suppressed.
Lots of criticisms of the Jesus movement are evidenced either directly (by writings of the critics) or indirectly (by later writings that refer to the critics and what they said, or by defensive Christian writings which respond to the criticism). But for this particular criticism, although it would have been a very powerful criticism f offered, there is zero evidence, either direct or indirect. Yes, it's possible that by a freakish coincidence this is the one criticism of Christianity of which all trace has entirely disappeared from the historical record. But it's a fairly extravagant speculation to explain a complete lack of evidence.
(PS: the notion of anti-Christian writings or opinions being supressed isn't relevant here. That comes from a much later period, a couple of centuries afterwards, when Christians were in a position to (attempt to) supress texts or opinions, they didn't like. Even then, such efforts were mostly unsuccessful, but at this period they weren't even possible. Christians simply didn't have the power to censor or supress what they didn't like.)
You're suggesting that not only the opponents of Christianity but also the followers of Christianity knew that Jesus was fictional?Because perhaps they are addressing people that already knew that he was fictional and/or wouldn't accept the proof that he was. Perhaps they thought it was a better tactic to address other points more relevant to his followers and the growing political movement.
You do realise that that's a completely different fictional Jesus hypothesis from the one that others have been advancing, don't you?
You're missing my point again, King Mob. If the claim that the Temple authorities delivered Jesus up to the Romans to be crucified is fictional, the Temple authorities absolutely know, from their own knowledge, that it's fictional. Both the individual priests involved, and the Temple priests as a collective, known this. Similarly Pontius Pilate, and people close to the adminstration of Pontius Pilate, know the truth about claims that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If these things never happened, there is large group of both Jews and Gentiles who know that they never happened, and most of them are still alive when Christian communities are flourishing and Paul is writing to them. And yet the issue of whether these events ever happened at all is never argued about? It never occurs to the opponents of Christianity to raise this rather obvious point? I don't find that very plausible.That's kind of your assumption that they were the ones who were actually supposed to have met Jesus. It could be that they assumed other people had, but they never verified it. Or they were just not the same people at all.
Or maybe the stories about Jesus just never happened...?
In the time of which we are speaking, the gospels haven't been written, so opponents of the Jesus movement can hardly be expected to refute them.We already know that at the very least, the gospels and early church claim things happened that didn't really happen.
Do the critics you refer to mention the fictionality of these fictional events?
If not, does this mean that events we know didn't happen are somehow now more likely to have happened?
From the time we're speaking of, all we have are the writings of Paul. Paul makes limited fact claims about Jesus. He basically says: Jesus had a mother called Mary, had a brother called James, taught against divorce, was crucified. From the tone of Paul's letters, he's not revealing these things to his readership, or trying to persuade them; they seem to be facts that he already thinks they accept. All of these claims also appear in the (later) Gospel of Mark, whose author shows no sign of every having read Paul's letters, or being aware of their wider content. So it seems likely that Paul didn't invent these facts; he is recording existing traditions about Jesus which the author of Mark also records.
SFAIK we have no record of any of these fact-claims being challenged, and the parsimonious explanation for that is that they are in fact true. There is nothing remarkable about them, after all, unless Jesus is wholly fictional, in which case we have to postulate a conspiracy involving Mary and James, both of whom are still alive at the time, and everyone who knows Mary and James.
No, my explanation is not speculative. The evidence for the historicity of Jesus may not be enough to convince you, but it is certainly not non-existent, and it' accepted as sufficient by many - perhaps most - scholars of the period. The dominant scholarly opinion is certainly that that the historical Jesus is more likely than the fictional Jesus.Yes, I know. But your explanation is likewise speculative and not really evidenced either. It's based on a lot of supposition and your conclusion doesn't follow.
It's more than a possible explanation; it's the simplest and most parsimonious. Occam's razor, and all that.There are other reasons why early critics of the movement wouldn't have claimed Jesus was fictional.
Him being real is only one possible explanation.
Again, I still await the other explanations.
My purpose is not to put forward the evidence for the historical Jesus; that's already well-known. It's to critically scrutinise the fictional Jesus hypothesis.Well you're not really putting forward much in the way of evidence for the historical Jesus and you're not doing much to counter the arguments Oldrnwisr has put forward.0 -
"... how they MIGHT react"Peregrinus wrote: »No. We can't say how they did react, but we can certainly think meaningfully about how they would react.
Again, without a real example you can't really present your theory are a given.
The most direct example I can think of is John Frum.Peregrinus wrote: »By their own contemporaries? If there are "lots of examples", you should have no difficulty in offering, say, three?
I'm not rejecting your hypothesis, I'm rejecting the idea that it's the only one or that it's a given.Peregrinus wrote: »Yes, it's possible. But there is zero evidence for it, and you can't simulatenously reject a hypothesis on the grounds that it is supported by limited evidence, but embrace one for which there is zero evidence.
Yea sure, but again, I'm pointing out the other possibilities that exist as an explanation.Peregrinus wrote: »You're suggesting that not only the opponents of Christianity but also the followers of Christianity knew that Jesus was fictional?
You do realise that that's a completely different fictional Jesus hypothesis from the one that others have been advancing, don't you?Peregrinus wrote: »You're missing my point again, King Mob. If the claim that the Temple authorities delivered Jesus up to the Romans to be crucified is fictional, the Temple authorities absolutely know, from their own knowledge, that it's fictional. Both the individual priests involved, and the Temple priests as a collective, known this. Similarly Pontius Pilate, and people close to the adminstration of Pontius Pilate, know the truth about claims that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If these things never happened, there is large group of both Jews and Gentiles who know that they never happened, and most of them are still alive when Christian communities are flourishing and Paul is writing to them. And yet the issue of whether these events ever happened at all is never argued about? It never occurs to the opponents of Christianity to raise this rather obvious point? I don;t find that very plausible.
Now, you see these two arguments don't gel.Peregrinus wrote: »In the time of which we are speaking, the gospels haven't been written, so opponents of the Jesus movement can hardly be expected to refute them.
From the time we're speaking of, all we have are the writings of Paul. Paul makes limited fact claims about Jesus. He basically says: Jesus had a mother called Mary, had a brother called James, taught against divorce, was crucified. All of these claims also appear in the Gospel of Mark, whose author shows no sign of every having read Paul's letters, or being aware of their wider content. So it seems likely that Paul didn't invent these facts; he is recording existing traditions about Jesus which the author of Mark also records.
SFAIK we have no record of any of these fact-claims being challenged, and teh parsimonious explanation for that is that they are in fact true. There is nothing remarkable about them, after all.
We know that there are early church claims about events and things we agree did not happen. Many of these are contained in the gospels. And if you believe that Mark is drawing from accounts rather than making stuff up whole cloth, we can assume that there must have been at least some untrue claims about Jesus, whether or not he was real at the time of his critics.
So where are the claims of fakery about these events?
Do you think that none of the earliest Christians made untrue claims at all? Do you think that all of the untrue claims in the gospels only popped up in the Gospels and at no time before?
You are claiming that if these events didn't happen, then there would be accounts of people calling them out.
Presumably there would even accounts of people calling out untrue things that the earliest followers of Jesus claimed that didn't make their way into the bible.
Do you have some examples of these?
If not, why not?0 -
John Frum may not in fact be wholly fictional. As in, the foundation of the John Frum stories may well be an actual person who either was, or presented himself to the Vanuatuans as, a westerner and who promised them material benefits.The most direct example I can think of is John Frum.
But let that go. Assume that he is or may be wholly fictional. This fact is widely noted. In truth, you will find it hard to mention any text about John Frum that doesn't point this out.
So this doesn't help you. You're looking for someone like John Frum, except that his fictionality is not pointed out.
Well, we do have records of opponents of Christianity contradicting the virgin birth claim. Specifically, we have a record of story which alleges that Jesus was the product of an illicit liason between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera.We know that there are early church claims about events and things we agree did not happen. Many of these are contained in the gospels. And if you believe that Mark is drawing from accounts rather than making stuff up whole cloth, we can assume that there must have been at least some untrue claims about Jesus, whether or not he was real at the time of his critics.
So where are the claims of fakery about these events?
Do you think that none of the earliest Christians made untrue claims at all? Do you think that all of the untrue claims in the gospels only popped up in the Gospels and at no time before?
You are claiming that if these events didn't happen, then there would be accounts of people calling them out.
Presumably there would even accounts of people calling out untrue things that the earliest followers of Jesus claimed that didn't make their way into the bible.
Do you have some examples of these?
If not, why not?
And Matthew's gospel (written 30-40 years after the death of Christ) includes a story about an angel appearing to Joseph and telling him, yes, when Mary says she's been impregnated by the Holy Spirit, she really has. And this is why Joseph decides against divorcing her quietly.
Nobody else has this story, so Matthew likely invented it. (Matthew does that a lot.) And at least some scholars suggest that he did so to defend Christians against an accusation which was being levelled even then; that Jesus was illegitimate.
Which, again, raises the issue; if the opponents of the Jesus movement thought that Jesus was, or even might be, fictional, then the story that he was born illegitimate would itself be false. Why circulate a false story to refute Christianity, when you could circulate a true one that would be an even more effective refutation?0 -
Advertisement
-
He was the David Blaine of his time.0
-
Now you're moving the goalposts.Peregrinus wrote: »So this doesn't help you. You're looking for someone like John Frum, except that his fictionality is not pointed out.
You frequently caveat that it needs to be his contemporaries. In this case, it needs to be both someone from his time as well as someone specifically from that culture.
John Frum is fictional. Presumably someone on these islands knew this, yet his legend grew and persisted.
Now it's your turn. Please point to an example of what happens when someone fictional is called out by his contemporaries.
Again, you are moving the goalposts.Peregrinus wrote: »Well, we do have records of opponents of Christianity contradicting the virgin birth claim. Specifically, we have a record of story which alleges that Jesus was the product of an illicit liason between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera.
You have been specifically talking about events that can be attested to by various known witnesses (ie the people in the stories about Jesus).
Not all of these stories are true. So where are the examples you believe should exist of people refuting untrue stories of Jesus?
Are there people saying that he didn't perform X miracle or never visited Y place?
Also, the claim about Pantera comes from the 2nd Century, which is not contemporary.
Again, I've given several other possibilities for this. The idea that Jesus must therefore exist is not the only explanation. And again, not contemporary.Peregrinus wrote: »Which, again, raises the issue; if the opponents of the Jesus movement thought that Jesus was, or even might be, fictional, then the story that he was born illegitimate would itself be false. Why circulate a false story to refute Christianity, when you could circulate a true one that would be an even more effective refutation?0 -
John Frum was called out by his contemporaries. The movement arises in the late 1930s, and immediately comes to the attention of the colonial administrators, who by the early 1940s are identifying “John Frum” as a local man Manehevi who poses as a supernatural being, appearing before men under the influence of kava, clothed in western costume and adopting a shrill speaking voice.Now you're moving the goalposts.
You frequently caveat that it needs to be his contemporaries. In this case, it needs to be both someone from his time as well as someone specifically from that culture.
John Frum is fictional. Presumably someone on these islands knew this, yet his legend grew and persisted.
Now it's your turn. Please point to an example of what happens when someone fictional is called out by his contemporaries.
As the movement gained traction and caused increasing problems for the authorities, Manehevi was arrested, tried and was publicly punished.
A second man, Neloiag, then proclaimed himself as John Frum. He loses the support of other leaders of the movement, however, who are alienated by his militancy. He too is then arrested, imprisoned and eventually sent to New Caledonia, from where he does not return.
So, pretty comprehensively called out, then.
(Why does the John Frum movement not collapse at this point? It does, to some extent; it loses a lot of adherents. But it survives because it’s a focus for protest against what they see as the injustice/oppression of colonial rule. Ultimately John Frummists aren’t concerned with whether Frum is a historical character, a real but supernatural being or a useful embodiment of their objections to colonial and cultural oppression, which is the main driver of Frummism.)
The only fact-claims about Jesus which we positively know to have been in circulation in the 25 or so years after his death are those made by Paul, already mentioned. We believe that many of the fact claims that first appear in later texts (e.g. the gospels) were not invented by the authors of those texts but simply recorded by them, but as we have no earlier evidence of them we cannot say when they arose.Again, you are moving the goalposts.
You have been specifically talking about events that can be attested to by various known witnesses (ie the people in the stories about Jesus).
Not all of these stories are true. So where are the examples you believe should exist of people refuting untrue stories of Jesus?
Are there people saying that he didn't perform X miracle or never visited Y place?
Also, the claim about Pantera comes from the 2nd Century, which is not contemporary.
From the fact claims that we know to have circulated about Jesus before the gospels, the commonplace ones - his mother, his brother, his teaching against divorce, his death - do not seem to have been refuted by anyone that we know of. This is easy to explain if Jesus is historical and the claims are true; less easy if Jesus is completely fictional. The only claim that seems to have been refuted is the claim that he rose from the dead. Matthew’s gospel refers to an assertion that Jesus’s body was missing from the tomb because it was stolen or removed by his followers, and includes details intended to refute that assertion. Matthew would hardly invent an objection to the resurrection, so presumably he addresses it because it’s already in circulation and he can’t ignore it. Mark’s (earlier) gospel doesn’t explicitly mention the same objection, but includes details that seem intended to refute it, so we infer that the “stolen body” hypothesis may already have been in circulation even when Mark was writing.
(But, of course, the stolen body hypothesis does imply that the critics accepted that Jesus’s body had been put in the tomb in the first place. Which they wouldn’t accept, if they had any reason to think that Jesus was wholly fictional.)
I’ve never said it was the only explanation; just that it’s the most plausible and likely one. (And I note that at no time have you ever contradicted that view. You have argued for the possiblity of other explanations, which I have never denied, but you haven’t suggested any reason for preferring the other explanations.)Again, I've given several other possibilities for this. The idea that Jesus must therefore exist is not the only explanation.0 -
So short answer: You cannot point to any refutations of falsified events from the time or that are "recorded" later.Peregrinus wrote: »The only fact-claims about Jesus which we positively know to have been in circulation in the 25 or so years after his death are those made by Paul, already mentioned. We believe that many of the fact claims that first appear in later texts (e.g. the gospels) were not invented by the authors of those texts but simply recorded by them, but as we have no earlier evidence of them we cannot say when they arose.
Why would it be less easy? It would be equally as easy if there was just one cohesive story or one set story that the movement wanted to sell.Peregrinus wrote: »From the fact claims that we know to have circulated about Jesus before the gospels, the commonplace ones - his mother, his brother, his teaching against divorce, his death - do not seem to have been refuted by anyone that we know of. This is easy to explain if Jesus is historical and the claims are true; less easy if Jesus is completely fictional.
Again this is ignoring all of the various claims that were made that were false.
Again, there should be claims of fakery about them, according to you, yet they do not seem to exist...
They'd also hardly record any refutations they couldn't counter or hand wave away. And seeing as how you have to rely on early Christian writers wrote about themselves, it's not really surprising that there would be no record of people calling Jesus fake.Peregrinus wrote: »The only claim that seems to have been refuted is the claim that he rose from the dead. Matthew’s gospel refers to an assertion that Jesus’s body was missing from the tomb because it was stolen or removed by his followers, and includes details intended to refute that assertion. Matthew would hardly invent an objection to the resurrection, so presumably he addresses it because it’s already in circulation and he can’t ignore it. Mark’s (earlier) gospel doesn’t explicitly mention the same objection, but includes details that seem intended to refute it, so we infer that the “stolen body” hypothesis may already have been in circulation even when Mark was writing.
Remember, there is no contemporary accounts of Jesus's existence external to Christian writing in the first place.
Great. So the idea that there's no claims of Jesus being fake doesn't really amount to anything meaningful.Peregrinus wrote: »I’ve never said it was the only explanation; just that it’s the most plausible and likely one. (And I note that at no time have you ever contradicted that view. You have argued for the possiblity of other explanations, which I have never denied, but you haven’t suggested any reason for preferring the other explanations.)0 -
Honestly, King Mob, you have the attention span of a gnat. In the very post to which you are replying I point to evidence of attempt to falsify the resurrection claim.So short answer: You cannot point to any refutations of falsified events from the time or that are "recorded" later.
No. Even a cohesive false story is more easily refuted than a true one.Why would it be less easy? It would be equally as easy if there was just one cohesive story or one set story that the movement wanted to sell.
And this particular story is not all that cohesive, since it involves a significant number of people who were still living when Paul was writing. I have already pointed out that Paul mentions both Mary and James, who would know if his Jesus story was a fabrication. He also mentions Jesus's other brothers, who would also know, and Peter, who would also know. So for Paul's story to be a fabrication, we have to hypothesise quite a large conspiracy to sustain it. And we know both from Paul's own letters and from the Act of the Apostles that he was very much at odds with both Peter and James, so they don't look like people who Paul would choose as dependable co-conspirators.
So, yeah. Fact-claims about Jesus not being refuted when first put about are easily explained if Jesus was a historical figure and the fact claims are either (a)true, or (b) plausible and uncontroversial. But if Jesus is fictional and all fact claims about him are complete fabrications, there not being refuted at the time does require some explanation, and involves hypothesising extensive and improbable conspiracies. Which, fine, you can hypothesise. But you make no attempt to offer any reason for taking the hypothesis seriously.
I've already addressed this. From the period you are talking about, if Jesus is real then the only claim made about him that is controversial is that he rose from the dead, and people do seek to refute this.Again this is ignoring all of the various claims that were made that were false.
Again, there should be claims of fakery about them, according to you, yet they do not seem to exist...
They do record claims that they cannot counter or hand-wave away. The "stolen body hypothesis" still circulates because Mark and Matthew recorded it, and their refutations of it are unconvincing.They'd also hardly record any refutations they couldn't counter or hand wave away.
And yet there is a record of people calling specific claims about Jesus fake. You cannot assume that the Christians succeeded in suppressing the one when they clearly did not suppress the other.And seeing as how you have to rely on early Christian writers wrote about themselves, it's not really surprising that there would be no record of people calling Jesus fake.
So? Why would there be? There are no contemporary accounts at all of Alexander the Great, a figure of rather more prominence in his own time that Jesus of Nazareth. Zero contemporary accounts of Jesus is exactly what we would expect if he is a historical figure.Remember, there is no contemporary accounts of Jesus's existence external to Christian writing in the first place.
Sorry, what? How are you getting that out of anything I have written?Great. So the idea that there's no claims of Jesus being fake doesn't really amount to anything meaningful.0 -
The similarity with Jesus is that John Frum was invisible to serious scholars and contemporary reporters at the time.Peregrinus wrote: »John Frum may not in fact be wholly fictional. As in, the foundation of the John Frum stories may well be an actual person..
It was only later that the cult of John Frum drew attention as a curiosity.
By which time it was hard to know if the man himself had ever existed.
The default assumption should be that if these men ever existed, they were simply small time con-men and opportunists. Probably with no idea themselves that they would leave behind a lasting impression.0 -
A false story is very easy to write down.Peregrinus wrote: »No. Even a cohesive false story is more easily refuted than a true one.
Sure, that all of those people also existed, could read and knew what was written about them. And that assuming keeping 10 people quiet in an age before widespread information and education was somehow impossible?Peregrinus wrote: »And this particular story is not all that cohesive, since it involves a significant number of people who were still living when Paul was writing. I have already pointed out that Paul mentions both Mary and James, who would know if his Jesus story was a fabrication. He also mentions Jesus's other brothers, who would also know, and Peter, who would also know. So for Paul's story to be a fabrication, we have to hypothesise quite a large conspiracy to sustain it. And we know both from Paul's own letters and from the Act of the Apostles that he was very much at odds with both Peter and James, so they don't look like people who Paul would choose as dependable co-conspirators.
It's not really an elaborate conspiracy...
So assuming for a moment Jesus was ficitional and that people were actively trying to disprove he existed. Where would these claims be found?Peregrinus wrote: »So, yeah. Fact-claims about Jesus not being refuted when first put about are easily explained if Jesus was a historical figure and the fact claims are either (a)true, or (b) plausible and uncontroversial. But if Jesus is fictional and all fact claims about him are complete fabrications, there not being refuted at the time does require some explanation, and involves hypothesising extensive and improbable conspiracies. Which, fine, you can hypothesise. But you make no attempt to offer any reason for taking the hypothesis seriously.
So if there were instances of people involved directly calling the followers of a fictional Jesus out, the followers would write it down?Peregrinus wrote: »I've already addressed this. From the period you are talking about, if Jesus is real then the only claim made about him that is controversial is that he rose from the dead, and people do seek to refute this.
Sure, unconvincing to us.Peregrinus wrote: »They do record claims that they cannot counter or hand-wave away. The "stolen body hypothesis" still circulates because Mark and Matthew recorded it, and their refutations of it are unconvincing.
But not unconvincing to the authors perhaps. Or not unconvincing to the people they were addressing.
I've seen people believe stupider things for stupider reasons.
Do you think that the author's believed that their refutation is unconvincing? If so, why did they write their refutation in the first place?
What it seems to be case of is a common tactic of believers in psuedoscience: presenting an argument from doubters you believe you've got a killer response to so it seems like you've got more answers than you do.
If for example, Mary herself started disagreeing with some of the claims, where would her arguments be recorded, who by and why?
It's not even really suppressing. It's just not recording them. The Scientologists don't write down and include the foibles of their founders or the real criticisms of their claims either.Peregrinus wrote: »And yet there is a record of people calling specific claims about Jesus fake. You cannot assume that the Christians succeeded in suppressing the one when they clearly did not suppress the other.
It's also what we'd expect if he was a fake figure.Peregrinus wrote: »So? Why would there be? There are no contemporary accounts at all of Alexander the Great, a figure of rather more prominence in his own time that Jesus of Nazareth. Zero contemporary accounts of Jesus is exactly what we would expect if he is a historical figure.
Likewise, it doesn't follow that there must be contemporary claims he was fake if he was fake.
If he were fictional, then we would see the exact same thing.
If this is not the case, where would we find these contemporary claims?
Your argument hinges on the idea that a lack of claims of fakery somehow bolster his existence.Peregrinus wrote: »Sorry, what? How are you getting that out of anything I have written?
A lack of claims of fakery does not imply that he was real.
Hence the argument doesn't really stand up.0 -
Frum was visible to colonial adminstrators at the time, and their actions with respect to him are documented. And the Frum movement was certainly the subject of academic scrutiny from the early 1950s, perhaps 10 to 15 years after it first arose, and much less time than that after the last reported sightings of [someone claiming to be] Frum.The similarity with Jesus is that John Frum was invisible to serious scholars and contemporary reporters at the time.
It was only later that the cult of John Frum drew attention as a curiosity.
By which time it was hard to know if the man himself had ever existed.
Well, an analogous hypothesis about Jesus is that he was a small-time itinerant preacher from Galilee who came to the big smoke, got himself into trouble with the authorities and came to a sticky end. And that's a much easier hypothesis to accept, and requires far less in the way of unevidenced and apparently unlikely hypotheses and conspiracy theorising to support.The default assumption should be that if these men ever existed, they were simply small time con-men and opportunists. Probably with no idea themselves that they would leave behind a lasting impression.0 -
Have you a link to anything on this? I thought it was the cult that came to their attention, not the man. I think one or two impersonators or copycat John Frums might have made brief appearances afterwards. Much like Elvis Presleys keep cropping up.Peregrinus wrote: »Frum was visible to colonial adminstrators at the time, and their actions with respect to him are documented.
A couple of decades on from the foundation seems to be an optimal time for the spread of a cult. As with Paul's conversion, the adherents are almost contemporary, but not quite direct witnesses to the actual events they preach about.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Paul was likely born at around the time of Jesus's birth, not his death. He and Jesus would have been contemporaries, though they never met. (If they had, Paul would certainly have mentioned it in his writings.) Paul's letters start from a time about 20-25 years after the crucifixion, and it's evident that by this time there are already organised Christian communities in many places (Who else is Paul writing to?) who already have a considerable body of tradition/belief/memory of who Jesus was, what he said, what he did.
Well, no. This isn't true and I've already pointed this out to you. Paul is writing to communities of gentile converts that he himself founded. This is explicitly and repeatedly mentioned. Of the 7 authentic Pauline epistles (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon):- Galatians was a church probably somewhere around Antalya in Turkey about 440 miles from Jerusalem directly but about 880 miles for travellers of the time. It is likely from internal evidence in the letter and surrounding evidence in Acts 16:6 that it was Paul himself who founded the communities in Galatia and that they were not pre-existing communities. Moreover, Galatians 4:8 demonstrates that the churches were composed of primarily pagan converts.
- Thessalonians was a church founded by Paul during his travels with Timothy and Silas. In Acts 17, it mentions that Paul goes into a Jewish synagogue in Thessalonica and preaches, "proving" that Jesus was the Messiah. We are told in 17:4 that: "Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women."
- Corinthians was again founded by Paul. The story of Paul's preaching and conversion of gentiles in Corinth is documented in Acts 18.
- Philippians was also founded through the actions of Paul, particularly Paul's preaching in Philippi beginning with the conversion of Lydia in Acts 16.
- Philemon was the leader of the church in Colossae (as in epistle to the Colossians). This church was founded by Epaphras a man from Colossae who helped Paul in his ministry and was sent by Paul back to his hometown to preach Paul's gospel. So again, not a pre-existing community.
- The evidence for the founding of the Roman church is a little more vague. The 2nd century church leader Irenaeus states that this church too was founded by Paul, this time in partnership with Peter. However, a later 4th century writer Ambrosiaster states that there was a Christian community already in Rome by the time Paul got there. However, internal evidence from Romans itself suggests that there were several groups of believers.
Similarly, there's no evidence that any of the people in places like Galatia were eyewitnesses or had any contact with them. Even in places where Paul's communities did come into contact with other apostles, this seems to have caused major disagreements. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:11-12
"My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”Peregrinus wrote: »So the problem with the idea of Jesus as a complete fiction is this; it's a fiction that must have been created and propagated well within the lifetime of large numbers of people who would be well positioned to know, first-hand, that it was a complete fiction. And yet not only is it widely accepted, but we have no evidence at all that anybody at the time ever suggested that it was a fiction.
The thing is, as Richard Carrier points out in On the Historicity of Jesus, euhmerization (taking originally mythical figures and pretending that they were real) can take hold in a short space of time. Even in modern times, John Frum, Tom Navy and Ned Ludd in particular were all suggested as real people within the lifetime of people who would have been positioned to know.Peregrinus wrote: »No writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction survive. No writings survive which refer to any writings from the period attacking Jesus as a fiction. In all the defensive writings we have from Christian source which attempt to vindicate Christianity against various attacks, none at all seem to be defending against an attack based on the fictitiousness of Jesus.
Well, there's two problems here.
Firstly, no writings which are hostile to Christianity survive at all except as scattered quotes in Christian writings. So we don't have Celsus' The True Logos, we don't have Fronto's Discourse against the Christians and we don't have Hierocles' The Lover of Truth.
Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any non-Christian early sources at all. The early non-Christian writers seem unaware of Jesus or Christianity. I've already pointed out the suspicious silence of Seneca the Younger but there's also Philo of Alexandria, Justus Tiberius and Nicolaus of Damascus. Then there are the mysterious gaps in later histories which should mention Jesus. For example Cassius Dio's 80-volume history of Rome chronicles 983 years of Roman history. The first 34 and last 20 volumes are partially extant surviving in fragmentary copies and compiled works. However, the middle section (35-60) is fully extant, with one glaring omission, book 55 is completely absent with not even a scrap of it surviving. This is the period from 12BCE to 9CE which would have covered Jesus' birth, Herod's massacre of the innocents, the Star of Bethlehem etc. I have also previously mentioned Tacitus' history of Tiberius which again has a mysterious gap between the years 29 and 31CE around one of the possible years of crucifixion. There are other similar mysterious gaps in the works of Plutarch and of course, your namesake Peregrinus Proteus
The idea that we would have writings attacking the Jesus story as fictional is ludicrous for two reasons. Firstly it seems that anything which either attacked Christianity or didn't mention Jesus or Christianity was wiped out by later Christians such that it is no longer extant today. Secondly, it seems that nobody knew who Jesus was in the early days and early writers both Jewish and Roman were not aware of any such person or movement.Peregrinus wrote: »All of this is rather hard to explain if, in fact, Jesus is completely fictional. In fact, those who suggest that he was fictional seem to be embracing a theory for which there is considerably less evidence than the rival theory, that he was historical.
Not really. The gospels which lead on from Paul's writings are works of deliberate fiction and so are necessarily discarded as far as historicity is concerned. The real question here is Paul and who Paul was writing about, whether or not he believed Jesus to be real. The problem for both sides of the Jesus myth argument is that there is so little biographical information about Jesus in Paul's writings that there's little evidence to build a case either way. On the one hand, Paul describes Jesus as being born of a woman and dying but on the other hand all of Paul's information comes from visions and he could have, if he wanted to included biographical information about Jesus. He could have met Jesus' mother and family if he chose to but his interactions with Jesus' family and apostles is limited in the extreme.
FWIW, here's what I think happened. I think that there probably was a "Jesus", not an actual person called Jesus but someone who roughly fit the type of apocalyptic preacher that we get vague hints about in the NT. In fact, I think from real historians like Josephus that there probably a great many Jesus characters circulating at the time, motivated by the Roman occupation and being brought up on stories of the messiah. All of these characters would in all likelihood have remained in relative obscurity had it not been for Paul. Paul's "conversion" is in reality, likely to have been an attack of temporal lobe epilepsy, stroke or TIA, given the symptoms of temporary blindness, auditory and visual hallucinations and sudden hyperreligiosity. Paul's rabid proselytising about this "vision" of Jesus (which probably formed as a mish-mash of the various Jesus types floating around at the time) seems to have been effective and resulted in the conversion of a great number of pagans in Galatia, Colossae, Philippi and Corinth, to name but a few. These communities inevitably spread further and further and towards the late 1st century had grown to the point that doctrinal teachings could no longer sustain the faithful. They wanted to know more about this Jesus. That's where the gospels come in. The gospel writers, Mark in particular invent a backstory for Jesus to satiate the faithful and attract even more new followers. However, it's not until the 2nd century that the movement actually gets big enough for the outside world to notice and we get mentions from Pliny and Tacitus. And the rest as they say is history.
OK, so here's the TLDR. The most reasonable explanation for Jesus is the minimal historical Jesus, there was probably some guy or guys called Jesus upon whom the gospels are based but we don't have any actual facts about Jesus because of the fictitious nature of the gospels and the silence of contemporary writers. Anyone making a case beyond this, on either side has some major obstacles to overcome.0
Advertisement