An ancient mythicist accusation in Recognitions 8:62

[Giuseppe]

@outhouse

He is exploring how bad your context and interpretation is, on all angles while exploring the possible correct meaning in as great a detail as one can.

Clearly your historicist mind doesn't want to accept what the texts says: that some did doubt about the existence of the True Prophet.

Not only of the celestial Christ. But of the earthly True Prophet.

@outhouse

the following sentence helped me to place context away from the OP

Total non sense. What is denied is the same existence of the True Prophet. NOT (only) of what Peter said about the True Prophet.

[andrewcriddle]

The Greek for most of the Recognitions is lost to us, but here is Rufinus' Latin for the phrase in question:

"And, therefore, since amongst these philosophers are things uncertain, we must come to the true Prophet. Him God the Father wished to be loved by all, and accordingly He has been pleased wholly to extinguish those opinions which have originated with men, and in regard to which there is nothing like certainty -- that He the true Prophet might be the more sought after, and that He whom28 they had obscured should show to men the way of truth.

"For on this account also God made the world, and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed [sed, ut supra diximus, infidelibus dormit et absens habetur his, a quibus esse non creditur]."

And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet, he dismissed the crowds; and when he very earnestly entreated the old man to remain with us, he could prevail nothing; but he also departed, to return next day, as had been agreed upon. And after this, we also, with Peter, went to our lodging, and enjoyed our accustomed food and rest.

IIUC the Latin could be translated but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unfaithful and is held to be absent from those by whom it is not believed

Andrew Criddle

[Giuseppe]

from those by whom it is not believed

who would be "it" ? Do you mean "he" (i.e. the True Prophet in the context)? Or the doctrine just exposed about the True Prophet?

I consider very easy and natural the other translation:

from those by whom he is not believed to be (esse).

[Peter Kirby]

The Greek for most of the Recognitions is lost to us, but here is Rufinus' Latin for the phrase in question:

"And, therefore, since amongst these philosophers are things uncertain, we must come to the true Prophet. Him God the Father wished to be loved by all, and accordingly He has been pleased wholly to extinguish those opinions which have originated with men, and in regard to which there is nothing like certainty -- that He the true Prophet might be the more sought after, and that He whom28 they had obscured should show to men the way of truth.

"For on this account also God made the world, and by Him the world is filled; whence also He is everywhere near to them who seek Him, though He be sought in the remotest ends of the earth. But if any one seek Him not purely, nor holily, nor faithfully, He is indeed within him, because He is everywhere, and is found within the minds of all men; but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unbelieving, and is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed [sed, ut supra diximus, infidelibus dormit et absens habetur his, a quibus esse non creditur]."

And when Peter had said this, and more to the same effect, concerning the true Prophet, he dismissed the crowds; and when he very earnestly entreated the old man to remain with us, he could prevail nothing; but he also departed, to return next day, as had been agreed upon. And after this, we also, with Peter, went to our lodging, and enjoyed our accustomed food and rest.

IIUC the Latin could be translated but, as we have said before, He is dormant to the unfaithful and is held to be absent from those by whom it is not believed

The ANF translation appears to be more credible, IMO. The first thing that strikes me (and there may be more to consider than this) is that translating "he" provides very clear and proximal antecedents. On the other hand, translating "it" does not really do so (we could come up with something, like "the way of truth" I guess, but it is a stretch). The alternative seems to be more motivated by the fact that it is an alternative, than by necessity.

[davidbrainerd]

What does the obvious fact that some have always doubted Jesus' real historical existence have to do with historicism or mythicism?

When you go around claiming an incarnate god or a god appeared as a man, obviously some will always doubt the very existence of this person not just the deity claim.

[Peter Kirby]

What does the obvious fact that some have always doubted Jesus' real historical existence have to do with historicism or mythicism?

When you go aroound claimining an incarnate god or a god appeared as a man, obviously some will always doubt the very existence of this person not just the deity claim.

I don't think it makes a huge difference, in point of fact.

Are you unaware, however, of the popular tactic of arguing for the historicity of Jesus from the (so-called) "fact that nobody in antiquity doubted the very existence of this person"? I guess you are.

What you consider obvious isn't necessarily "objectively clear," isn't necessarily true, and isn't necessarily the way others see it.

If you like, the value of this quote is that there may finally be some evidence for what you would assume (to be obvious), without specific evidence.

[iskander]

What does the obvious fact that some have always doubted Jesus' real historical existence have to do with historicism or mythicism?

When you go around claiming an incarnate god or a god appeared as a man, obviously some will always doubt the very existence of this person not just the deity claim.

Difficult to know what is it that people did not believe in Recognitions 8:62. The paragraph is not describing a man but a true Prophet. The man may have existed but, was he a true Prophet? no, it is not believable

[Peter Kirby]

Difficult to know what is it that people did not believe in Recognitions 8:62. The paragraph is not describing a man but a true Prophet. The man may have existed but, was he a true Prophet? no, it is not believable

This is a fair point: it is difficult to know. An alternative interpretation according to which these disbelievers did believe that Jesus existed but did not believe that Jesus was the true prophet is a possible one. It cannot be ruled out entirely.

What I found most interesting about the text, however, is that this interpretation is not necessary. I think we'd be remiss to discard this, just as other suggestions such as the Dialogue with Trypho quote have been discarded in the past. There was good reason to think that your interpretation was correct with the Trypho quote. There really is no good reason to believe your interpretation is correct here... only that it is possible.

I am further impressed by:

(a) The fact that the Gentiles and the "philosophers" would not really believe in the true Prophet anyway, so aren't really interested in evaluating whether "this man was he" in the same way as the Jews were. In this context, they're being asked to believe the true Prophet exists because of Jesus.

(b) The fact that the statement is that they believe the true Prophet does not exist. This is very direct, and we're being a bit obtuse if we need it spelled out any more clearly. I think it's completely fair to interpret this as doubt whether the true Prophet "Jesus" existed.

(c) The other passages that I highlighted that make the author appear sensitive to claims that Jesus did not exist.

Together they make it seem like the more likely of the two interpretations, and that's an interesting thing. It looks like we have been wrong for a long time, and this episode shows how history should progress: by careful evaluation and a willingness to reconsider points of view.

[Paul the Uncertain]

It is "difficult to know." However, the non-existence of the supposed Jesus figure is an admissible interpretation, and admissibility is sufficient rebuttal to the Guild's truly fatuous argument-substitute that "no ancient questioned the existence of Jesus."

The fact claim is false, by the way. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote that the Simonians taught that Simon enacted Christ Jesus, not merely that Simon was the real Christ instead of Jesus (Sixth Catechetical Lecture 14). That, in turn, provides an evidentiary basis for favoring the disambiguation of apologists back to Justin and Irenaeus in favor of a "Jesus was a glamour cast by Simon" interpretation. It also supports a parallel disambiguation of this topic's writing as well.

Although the argument is empty, even by God's Own Guild standards, having a firm instance of the plausible is useful. For example, one of Celsus' counterarguments, a forerunner of "Pascal's wager," can also be read in light of what Cyril makes of Simonian claims, leading to a deeper modern appreciation of just how good Celsus was, way back then.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... dnt-exist/

[Giuseppe]

I am further impressed by:

(a) The fact that the Gentiles and the "philosophers" would not really believe in the true Prophet anyway, so aren't really interested in evaluating whether "this man was he" in the same way as the Jews were. In this context, they're being asked to believe the true Prophet exists because of Jesus.

(b) The fact that the statement is that they believe the true Prophet does not exist. This is very direct, and we're being a bit obtuse if we need it spelled out any more clearly. I think it's completely fair to interpret this as doubt whether the true Prophet "Jesus" existed.

(c) The other passages that I highlighted that make the author appear sensitive to claims that Jesus did not exist.

I think that the Recognitions 8:62 is revealing much more than iskander would (like to) think :

and [the True Prophet] is held to be absent from those by whom His existence is not believed.

d) This is saying that the belief of the presumed absence of the True Prophet is a direct consequence of the skepticism about the same existence of the True Prophet.

Something as: the True Prophet is absent now (as a divine being) because he didn't exist at all (in the real History).

This is very close to a first timide distinction, in the ancient world and by a Christian (!), between the concept of a historical Jesus (at least from the POV of the his mere existence) and the concept of a theological Christ (the presence ''now'' of an omnipresent but invisible True Prophet).