The question of Jesus' historicity has existed for centuries. If Jesus never existed, then neither did the twelve, nor Paul, nor Luke and Mark... and so on and so forth....
At what point in Christian history are we no longer dealing with "did this person really exist?", but rather with proven historical people?
For example, some claim Marcion wrote / collected / redacted the Pauline epistles from a variety of sources, and that the "character" Paul is a conflation of various fictional and non-fictional characters. OK, so how do we know Marcion was a real historical person?
... or Irenaeus, or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Clement, or Papias, or Justin Martyr... or any of the purported figures from the post-apostolic age?
At what point in Christian history are we no longer dealing with "did this person really exist?", but rather with proven historical people?
Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
-
neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
It may not be quite as black and white: ie. it might be more than 'existed v not-existed'.gmx wrote:The question of Jesus' historicity has existed for centuries. If Jesus never existed, then neither did the twelve, nor Paul, nor Luke and Mark... and so on and so forth....
At what point in Christian history are we no longer dealing with "did this person really exist?", but rather with proven historical people?
It's possible some or all of these characters existed in a different context to what the NT (and subsequent belief about the NT) portrays.
Good questions.gmx wrote:For example, some claim Marcion wrote / collected / redacted the Pauline epistles from a variety of sources, and that the "character" Paul is a conflation of various fictional and non-fictional characters. OK, so how do we know Marcion was a real historical person?
... or Irenaeus, or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Clement, or Papias, or Justin Martyr... or any of the purported figures from the post-apostolic age?
At what point in Christian history are we no longer dealing with "did this person really exist?", but rather with proven historical people?
The Ignatius story - of a condemned heretic being taken on a tour of duty where he was allowed to write several letters - is hard to believe.
Some or all of these 'early Church Fathers' could have existed, but the narratives about them could have been later embellished.
As Stephan Huller said elsewhere in this forum: trying to properly determine Marcion texts (and more about the Marcionite community) from texts like Tertullian's Adversus Marcionum first requires proper assessment of what happened to those Tertullian texts:
- How much were the Tertullian (and similar) texts 'played with' ??
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
Let's assume that we're leaving aside general philosophical questions here... right? We're not asking whether we're brains in vats or something.
The evidence for ancient Christianity comes in two flavors: literary and documentary. That's it. You've got your books and you got your relics. That's what we go by.
For the second century, it's almost entirely books. But there's at least one artifact. There's an inscription that looks very Christian attributed to a late second century Abercius (193-216 A.D. and yes this is precise). So, all crackpots and cranks aside, we're on fairly solid ground here. The one implies the many: not only did this Abercius exist but so did other Christians and some letters of "Paul." The word Christian/Chrestian itself (with spelling variations) appears on other third century inscriptions in the same region.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/abercius.html
Now when it comes to the books, textual criticism and higher criticism ask what the original state of the books might be and the other basic journalistic questions: who, where, when, and why. This is where a lot goes off the rails. It is difficult to establish an exact text without the originals, even if we might have "probable" conclusions. It's also difficult to identify the author of a text when forgery must be considered a possibility.
But we get some kind of terra firma when we start analyzing from a more "value-free" perspective: just ask what one person is likely to have written and what that one person was up to. Start with what they are likely to have written.
We don't get very reliable results if we only have fragments. Small fragments are easier to forge and harder to detect forgery for. There's a reason why "Jesus' Wife" is just one papyrus scrap. The creator was smart enough to know that he's too stupid to pull off a brilliant, extensive forgery. There are not just more opportunities for mistakes, but it's also incredibly laborious. We can make it kind of a general guideline that a forgery can either be relatively short or contain mistakes but it can't be extremely lengthy and flawless. If you want to call a large opus a forgery, the burden of proof is on you. Failure to prove it, after trying, actually does tend to demonstrate its authenticity.
So we're looking for large corpora that we can tie to individual authors. This way, despite the difficulties of textual criticism and higher criticism, we can tie them to some particular historical people in the timeline (after asking "what they were up to" and otherwise looking at the internal evidence of their texts). Not only that, but unlike dear old Abercius, they will have left us an enormous heap of written material that can be used as evidence for further investigation.
If you follow that approach, the first people that you will hit chronologically will be Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. That's an objective statement. Their works are many multiples in size compared to any of the ostensibly-older texts. When probed with stylometric analysis, they also hold up as unified compositions. So if you want your "bedrock" foundation and if you want it as far back chronologically as you can take it, you can start there.
The names you could use for this approach include:
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Eusebius
These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity.
They should be analyzed in conjunction with the documentary evidence (and with the evidence for antiquity apart from Christianity, of course).
Other literary evidence is not irrelevant; it is just not on footing that is as sure (or is not as early).
Hippolytus of Rome is a special case: the author is pre-Nicene, the author is extensive, but there is also a longstanding and thorny problem of determining exactly who wrote exactly what.
There is also some literary evidence that is not quite as solid and extensive as the seven mentioned but which does, possibly, yield to similar analysis, while providing more tentative (to some degree) conclusions.
The evidence for ancient Christianity comes in two flavors: literary and documentary. That's it. You've got your books and you got your relics. That's what we go by.
For the second century, it's almost entirely books. But there's at least one artifact. There's an inscription that looks very Christian attributed to a late second century Abercius (193-216 A.D. and yes this is precise). So, all crackpots and cranks aside, we're on fairly solid ground here. The one implies the many: not only did this Abercius exist but so did other Christians and some letters of "Paul." The word Christian/Chrestian itself (with spelling variations) appears on other third century inscriptions in the same region.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/abercius.html
Now when it comes to the books, textual criticism and higher criticism ask what the original state of the books might be and the other basic journalistic questions: who, where, when, and why. This is where a lot goes off the rails. It is difficult to establish an exact text without the originals, even if we might have "probable" conclusions. It's also difficult to identify the author of a text when forgery must be considered a possibility.
But we get some kind of terra firma when we start analyzing from a more "value-free" perspective: just ask what one person is likely to have written and what that one person was up to. Start with what they are likely to have written.
We don't get very reliable results if we only have fragments. Small fragments are easier to forge and harder to detect forgery for. There's a reason why "Jesus' Wife" is just one papyrus scrap. The creator was smart enough to know that he's too stupid to pull off a brilliant, extensive forgery. There are not just more opportunities for mistakes, but it's also incredibly laborious. We can make it kind of a general guideline that a forgery can either be relatively short or contain mistakes but it can't be extremely lengthy and flawless. If you want to call a large opus a forgery, the burden of proof is on you. Failure to prove it, after trying, actually does tend to demonstrate its authenticity.
So we're looking for large corpora that we can tie to individual authors. This way, despite the difficulties of textual criticism and higher criticism, we can tie them to some particular historical people in the timeline (after asking "what they were up to" and otherwise looking at the internal evidence of their texts). Not only that, but unlike dear old Abercius, they will have left us an enormous heap of written material that can be used as evidence for further investigation.
If you follow that approach, the first people that you will hit chronologically will be Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. That's an objective statement. Their works are many multiples in size compared to any of the ostensibly-older texts. When probed with stylometric analysis, they also hold up as unified compositions. So if you want your "bedrock" foundation and if you want it as far back chronologically as you can take it, you can start there.
The names you could use for this approach include:
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Eusebius
These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity.
They should be analyzed in conjunction with the documentary evidence (and with the evidence for antiquity apart from Christianity, of course).
Other literary evidence is not irrelevant; it is just not on footing that is as sure (or is not as early).
Hippolytus of Rome is a special case: the author is pre-Nicene, the author is extensive, but there is also a longstanding and thorny problem of determining exactly who wrote exactly what.
There is also some literary evidence that is not quite as solid and extensive as the seven mentioned but which does, possibly, yield to similar analysis, while providing more tentative (to some degree) conclusions.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
These seven could be grouped thusPeter Kirby wrote: The names you could use for this approach include:
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Eusebius
These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity.
They should be analyzed in conjunction with the documentary evidence (and with the evidence for antiquity apart from Christianity, of course).
- Justin Martyr* (c. 100-165) (+/- Tatian - the earliest mention of Justin is found in the Oratio ad Graecos)
Irenaeus
Tertullian & Cyprian (c. 200-258)
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, [Pamphilus], & Eusebius
* eg. Irenaeus quotes Justin twice (IV., vi. 2; V., xxvi. 2) and shows his influence in other places. Tertullian, in his Adversus Valentinianos, calls Justin a philosopher and a martyr, and the earliest antagonist of heretics. Hippolytus and Methodius of Olympus also mention or quote him. Eusebius of Caesarea deals with him at some length and names works attributed to Justin (though Hortatory Address to the Greeks is not now attributed to Justin - Hardwick, Michael, "Contra Apionem and Antiquatates Judaicae: Points of Contact" in Feldman, Louis H. and Levison, John R. (eds.), Josephus' Contra Apionem (Brill Publishers, 1996), p. 379).
- A considerable number of works have been attributed to Justin by Arethas, Photius, and other writers, but thes attributions are now generally admitted to be spurious.
- The Expositio rectae fidei has been assigned by Draseke to Apollinaris of Laodicea, though it is probably a work of as late as the 6th century.
The
Cohortatio ad Graecos has been variously attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea; Apollinaris of Hierapolis; as well as others.
The Epistola ad Zenam et Serenum, an exhortation to Christian living, is dependent upon Clement of Alexandria, and is assigned by Pierre Batiffol to the Novatian Bishop Sisinnius (c. 400). The extant work under the title "On the Sovereignty of God" does not correspond with Eusebius' description of it, though Harnack regards it as still possibly Justin's, and at least of the 2nd century.
The author of the smaller treatise '[Discourse?] to the Greeks' cannot be Justin, because he is dependent on Tatian; Harnack places it between 180 and 240. (It's attributed to Tatian? - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=7823718)
- The Expositio rectae fidei has been assigned by Draseke to Apollinaris of Laodicea, though it is probably a work of as late as the 6th century.
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
Thank you for your extremely informative and relevant reply.Peter Kirby wrote:The evidence for ancient Christianity comes in two flavors: literary and documentary. That's it. You've got your books and you got your relics. That's what we go by.
For the second century, it's almost entirely books.......
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
I don't "group" them because they have different authors.MrMacSon wrote:These seven could be grouped thusPeter Kirby wrote: The names you could use for this approach include:
Justin Martyr
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Eusebius
These seven authors can provide, epistemically, the foundation of the investigation of ante-Nicene Christianity.
They should be analyzed in conjunction with the documentary evidence (and with the evidence for antiquity apart from Christianity, of course).
Obviously there are other alignments beyond these groupings*, and all roads lead to ...or through Eusebius (Richard Carrier thinks Pamphilus was more active than he's been credited for).
- Justin Martyr* (c. 100-165) (+/- Tatian - the earliest mention of Justin is found in the Oratio ad Graecos)
Irenaeus
Tertullian & Cyprian (c. 200-258)
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, [Pamphilus], & Eusebius
You can (temporarily) remove Eusebius from the picture entirely and work without him, if you're paranoid about the reach of that particular (mythologized) churchman.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
The works attributed to some, several, or all of that group are written by other un-named people? In their time or later?Peter Kirby wrote:I don't "group" them because they have different authors.
You think Eusebius is attributed with more of a role than he really had?You can (temporarily) remove Eusebius from the picture entirely and work without him, if you're paranoid about the reach of that particular (mythologized) churchman.
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
About these seven (no, the number is not important...):
Separate authorship is implied strictly on the basis that they are separate bodies of work, not from assumptions about the identity of the authors.
Conventional philological analysis combined with stylometric analysis establishes their existence as coherent, unified, and indeed separate bodies of work.
Why are you "grouping" any of them?
What does this grouping have to do with the epistemic foundation of investigation into ancient Christianity?
- I have listed seven because they have seven different authors for seven different bodies of work.
- That statement doesn't involve any assumption regarding the name of that author or the date of authorship.
- There are reasonable conclusions for both of those questions, but those come strictly after the identification of these separate corpora.
Separate authorship is implied strictly on the basis that they are separate bodies of work, not from assumptions about the identity of the authors.
Conventional philological analysis combined with stylometric analysis establishes their existence as coherent, unified, and indeed separate bodies of work.
Come again?MrMacSon wrote:The works attributed to some, several, or all of that group are written by other un-named people? In their time or later?Peter Kirby wrote:I don't "group" them because they have different authors.
Why are you "grouping" any of them?
What does this grouping have to do with the epistemic foundation of investigation into ancient Christianity?
Sometimes.MrMacSon wrote:... Eusebius is attributed with more of a role than he really had?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
-
andrewcriddle
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Myth vs History and the "Boundary of Certainty"
secondedgmx wrote:Thank you for your extremely informative and relevant reply.Peter Kirby wrote:The evidence for ancient Christianity comes in two flavors: literary and documentary. That's it. You've got your books and you got your relics. That's what we go by.
For the second century, it's almost entirely books.......
Andrew Criddle