History trumps Theology

[maryhelena]

Was your 'figure living around 30 CE who inspired the Gospel stories' crucified ?

Hmmm... not even if the Gospel stories themselves are false.I suppose. It's the time-travel test: if you can take a time machine back to around that time period could you meet the person who inspired the development of Christianity? So I'm looking for early texts that questioned that person's historicity.

But how on earth would you identify such a person ? You wrote: .....even if the Gospel stories themselves are false.''

Some people have something or another, do something or another, that leaves a mark, a footprint, on the lives of others. Some written words can do something similar. So, yes, in theory - (and in the human experience ) - a man living around 30 CE could have left a mark on those who knew him. Followers or people who knew the man, could well tell stories of him, of what he meant to them, of how his existence, his living, had relevance to their own lives.

Yep, perhaps a time-machine might find such a man - but since the 'church fathers' did not know such a man and relied only on stories - their own retelling of the man's story is not evidence of historicity - or ahistoricity. Indeed, we need a time-machine - and the only time-machine available to investigate the past is known as - History.....

As you indicated above re my question on crucifixion - ''not necessarily I suppose' - then, I would suggest, that is a good starting point when looking for a figure, during the time of Tiberius and Pilate, that might have left his footprint.....

[maryhelena]

GDon

The title of your thread asked the question: Any pre-325 CE writings where Jesus' historicity was doubted?
Your OP went on to define what you mean by 'historical Jesus'. ''By 'historical Jesus', I mean a figure living around 30 CE who inspired the Gospel stories, even if the Gospel stories themselves are false''.

The question in the title of your OP can be investigated via the writings of those who wrote about the gospel Jesus story. As I previously wrote - while that could be an interesting exercise it is also a futile exercise - for the simple reason that the numbers of doubters, if found, do not settle the issue at hand. The historicity of the gospel Jesus story cannot be settle by a hand count.

My question to you is: What enables you to bridge the gap between an inspirational man who lived around 30 CE with the stories in the gospels ? Stories you suggest could themselves be false. When I asked if you think this inspirational man was crucified you responded: ''..not necessarily I suppose''. If the gospel crucifixion, dated in the 30s CE can be ruled out - why bother at all with the gospel story?

Yes, we have a gospel Jesus story - as those early christians had a gospel Jesus story. As in Antiquity, so today, people believe that story to be an historical account of it's central figure, Jesus. Why do people believe stories - big question of course - and I'm not about to get into psychology etc. However, one needs to be careful, when considering early christians, to assume that their belief in the gospel story was a guarantee of the historicity of it's Jesus figure. In other words - don't confuse theological ideas with historical facts. And that, I'm afraid, is how I'm reading your OP. The divide, the gap, between theology and reality is far too wide to sustain any historicity for the gospel Jesus figure.

That does not mean that your inspirational man did not exist, that he did not leave his footprint in the lives of those who knew him. History has many such inspirational, heroic or epic, figures. The world has many more everyday heroes - those who lived their lives closer, as it were, to home. However, that said, I don't think the gospel writers were lionizing one man - I don't think that would be a very Jewish thing to do.

As Doherty once said to me:

Earl Doherty

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

[maryhelena]

So - you get 100 doubters against 1000 believers - what then ? This is an exercise in futility......

And imagine if a Middle-platonic first century "doubter" knew the "truth" that the Monad existed and that Christ devotees held deluded positions on reality! Much like we regard the deluded position held by modern Flatulenceearth devotees.

How much media content would a first century "doubter" produce just to specifically refute Christ devotees rather than the more numerous deluded Osiris devotees, etc. ?

Would any Christ devotee curator maintain such media content (cf. Archimedes Palimpsest)?

Basically, that's why I think searching for doubters in Antiquity re the historicity of gospel Jesus (some version or another) is a futile exercise. It achieves nothing of value relevant to a search for, or an understanding of, early Christian origins.

The core of the gospel Jesus story. - a Roman execution of a King of the Jews - the fundamental historical Christian claim... a claim that will symbolically be played out in some churches tomorrow, by thousands of believers in the historicity of the gospel Jesus figure....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stations_of_the_Cross

A sacrifice of a human man nailed to a cross is an abomination... to believe gospel writers, Jewish writers, were proposing that such an antihumanitarian event had salvation value is doing them a great disservice.

Ah, interesting, GDon in the other thread, in answer to my question if his inspirational man was crucified said..... "not necessarily"....

[StephenGoranson]

Declaring what Gospel writers could and could not have written and meant, based on retrojecting one individual's modern preference, for example that such was somehow really about the last Hasmonean, is sometimes called eisegesis.

[maryhelena]

Declaring what Gospel writers could and could not have written and meant, based on retrojecting one individual's modern preference, for example that such was somehow really about the last Hasmonean, is sometimes called eisegesis.

History, Stephen....history trumps theology...

[Peter Kirby]

Discussion proceeds better when a topic can be explored more fully in its own thread, rather than as tangents in many different threads. This thread will gather some of these tangents so that they can be discussed here as a subject in its own right in this thread.

[Charles Wilson]

The core of the gospel Jesus story. - a Roman execution of a King of the Jews - the fundamental historical Christian claim... a claim that will symbolically be played out in some churches tomorrow, by thousands of believers in the historicity of the gospel Jesus figure....
***
A sacrifice of a human man nailed to a cross is an abomination... to believe gospel writers, Jewish writers, were proposing that such an antihumanitarian event had salvation value is doing them a great disservice.

Thank you, maryhelena.
Well stated.

CW

[StephenGoranson]

To assert that Gospel writers could not write about "salvation" is peculiar,
since they did.
Apparently, didn't ask your permission.

[maryhelena]

The core of the gospel Jesus story. - a Roman execution of a King of the Jews - the fundamental historical Christian claim... a claim that will symbolically be played out in some churches tomorrow, by thousands of believers in the historicity of the gospel Jesus figure....
***
A sacrifice of a human man nailed to a cross is an abomination... to believe gospel writers, Jewish writers, were proposing that such an antihumanitarian event had salvation value is doing them a great disservice.

Thank you, maryhelena.
Well stated.

CW

Friend for life...well at least on this board.

Seriously though, history is important not just for people today but also for the gospel writers. It is history that has the potential to throw its light upon the gospel Jesus story. All theology can do is lead the way to an intellectual graveyard.

[Peter Kirby]

If there's an intellectual graveyard, then there is also a history of it, and all theology is also part of history.