Questioning the historicity of Jesus c.325 CE?

[Leucius Charinus]

So nobody questioned the historicity of Jesus in the Jesus Story when the Story went political c.325 CE?

• "Is there any other point to which you wish to draw my attention?"
  "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
  "The dog did nothing in the night time."
  "That was the curious incident", remarked Sherlock Holmes.
  
  ~ "Silver Blaze", by Sir Arthur Conon Doyle

This discussion is about whether or not it would be reasonable to expect that the historicity of Jesus would have been questioned by anyone in the populace of the Roman Empire (particularly the East) following the widespread publication of the Constantine Bible. For the purpose of the discussion it may be even assumed that the canonical books of the NT (the Jesus Story) were transmitted from the 1st (or 2nd centuries) to the 4th century as a legitimate series of manuscripts. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy or provenance of the Jesus Story, but everything to do with the question ....

• "What was the widespread political reception of the Jesus Story when it was published in the early 4th century"?
  
  Were everyone's thumbs up? YES we all certainly think that the Jesus Story happened almost 300 years ago as advertised !!!!
  
  Did everyone just take one look at it (or in the case of the illiterate listen to it being orated) and then convert from Plato and Homer readings to Jesus Story readngs?

We may assume that the populace was 90% pagan, and that a great percentage of this audience may never even have read the NT Bible - that it was rather "new and strange" when compared to their favourite books of Homer and Plato etc.

I might be wrong about this - in which case please present an opposing argument - but I find it very difficult to believe that, whether or not the story is true, no one gave the Jesus Story the thumbs down when it was first widely published during the rule of Constantine the Great ....


Negative Evidence
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_evidence

Negative evidence is a significant gap in expected knowledge or evidence for a phenomenon. If a proposed theory would logically produce a certain kind of evidence, then the absence of that evidence, or the negative evidence, is suggestive that the theory is mistaken. If your neighbor claimed that teenagers were racing their cars outside of his house, the absence of teenagers, cars and tire marks on the street would be negative evidence against his claim.

While useful in evaluating theories, negative evidence can be a dangerous tool. It is highly subjective, because it is predicated on our expectations, and it is always uncertain, because new evidence might be obtained to fill the gap.

Taken too far, negative evidence becomes an appeal to ignorance, the mistake of believing that because we have not found evidence, it must not exist. Negative evidence is often used in this capacity by advocates of creationism, who argue that we should have found more fossil evidence of intermediate species if evolution is correct.

To start this discussion I would point out that there are two major logical alternatives:

(1) Nobody Questioned the historicity of Jesus in the Jesus Story: This alternative is supported by the virtually non-existent evidence for the claim that anyone questioned the historicity of Jesus, and resolves to the claim that everyone in the Roman Empire at that time (including the heretics and the Heathens and the Unbelievers) accepted the historicity of the Jesus figure, and did not question it. This alternative is of course the hypothesis that 21st century scholarship on Jesus follows.

(2) People did question the historicity of Jesus in the Jesus Story (but this fact was suppressed by the heresiologists[1]): This alternative presumes that it is not a reasonable expectation that nobody questioned the historicity of Jesus at that time (when the NT Bible was first widely published) and that such questioning did in fact happen, but that such questioning has been struck out of the historical record, and the evidence for it has been systematically removed from the literary record. This option is presented as an alternative to (1) above for discussion purposes.


Which of these above two alternatives is more reasonable and why?

Thanks for your opinions on this matter.


LC


[1] Heresiologists and Canonical Christians are virtually indistinguishable during the early centuries.

[bcedaifu]

Thanks for this interesting question.

To address this puzzle, in my opinion, one would need to survey, carefully, each of the "historians" of the fourth and fifth century. By my reckoning that list contains six names, though there are ten times that number of authors in the fourth and fifth centuries, but, most of the others were either Christian apologists or influential Church members:

1. Sulpicius Alexander (Roman historian who wrote about the German tribes, who invaded Rome itself.) Work is not extant. Text quoted by Gregory of Tours (late sixth century)

2. Flavius Eutropius, accompanied Emperor Julian on the fatal expedition against the Persians. Eutropius lived, Julian died. His ten volume Breviarium historiae Romanae covers Rome from foundation to accession of Valens, Eastern Roman Emperor from death of Julian in 364 to 378CE, about a century prior to invasion of Rome by the "barbarians".

3. Ammianus Marcellinus (died about 390 CE or so) wrote a history of Rome from 353-378 CE, which is still extant. Earlier work, included in Res Gestae, is lost, today.

4. Sextus Aurelius Victor (also died about 390 CE) wrote De Caesaribus, which covers the period from Augustus to Constantius II (63 BCE to 361 CE), second son of Lord Constantine.

5. Priscus, History of Byzantium in Greek, covering time period from 433 CE to 474 CE. Only fragments survive. Other authors, from 8th to 10th centuries cite his contributions.

6. Socrates of Constantinople Historia Ecclesiastica, covering dates from 305 to 439 CE. The extant text is of unclear origin. Socrates apparently wrote in Greek, but the extant texts seem to be Latin. The oldest Greek text dates from the fifteenth century, and modern bilingual versions seem to rely on Latin editions, dating from the 17th century.

Well, that's my thought on the subject.

[Leucius Charinus]

Well, that's my thought on the subject.

Thanks bcedaifu for listing a number of historians who's literature is preserved from the epoch following the elevation of the Christian religion to the privileged religion of the Roman Empire c.325 CE. Scholars have searched these and other sources and as a result there is a consensus (with a few possible exceptions that do not concern the OP) that in these literary sources not one person responded with the assessment that Jesus was a non historical, fictional and/or purely literary creation, as is the claim of many mythicists today.

Despite this lack of evidence for a news report on the fictional Jesus from that epoch, the OP asks the question is it a reasonable expectation that simply nobody back then, when the Jesus Story was widely published in the Greek language by Constantine the Great, said "Jesus is a fiction". IMO this is an unrealistic expectation. Say some Army Chief today takes over the internet and attempts to implement as part of the control mechanism, a global monotheistic religion based on a story of Jesus who supposedly lived 300 years ago, perhaps while Abraham Lincoln was alive. I think that it is a reasonable hypothesis that there'd be claims that this recently distributed 300 year old Jesus story was a fairy tale and other comments to the same effect.

However the literary evidence in our possession (with few and questionable exceptions) reveals no such claims were made!!!

What an extraordinary situation !!!

The only way I can think of retain the hypothesis that the myth/fiction Jesus was one of the ancient opinions (perhaps held by many) is to further hypothesise that this ancient opinion was not recorded, or if it was recorded then it was not preserved in the literary evidence upon which we currently rely, on the basis that it was expedient for the "Church Organisation" not to do so. Is this further hypothesis reasonable?

The OP Question again, which is more reasonable?

(1) Nobody was a mythicist in the century following Nicaea (this lack of evidence appears to be confirmed in the extant literary sources eg: See Bart Ehrman) or,

(2) the record of mythcists in the century following Nicaea was expunged from the literary evidence by the "Church Organisation" (eg: via an Index Librorum Prohibitorum) .... See Decretum Gelasianum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

.....we acknowledge that some stuff is to be not merely rejected
but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
and with their authors and the followers of its authors
to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

[bcedaifu]

... the OP asks the question is it a reasonable expectation that simply nobody back then, when the Jesus Story was widely published in the Greek language by Constantine the Great, said "Jesus is a fiction".

First, anyone can express opinions, whether reasonable or not. What is more useful, in my opinion, in addressing the underlying issue: Did anyone in the third, fourth, or fifth centuries CE, express a written opinion, that the whole business of Jesus' presumed life, was a hoax, a legend, indeed, a myth?

Clearly some folks felt that belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth was absurd: Origen wrote Κατὰ Κέλσου, Contra Celsum, in the third century, 248 CE, if we can accept that dating. There would have been no need to write such a document, had there not been a significant quantity of doubters.

Secondly, it is interesting to read about the recent excavations in Belgium (Gaul), showing extensive 2nd century Roman temples, with many statues, and ornamental additions to various buildings, but no relics related to any aspect of Christianity. Zoroastrianism maybe, other Greek and Egyptian mythological figures, yes, Jewish influence: no.

Thirdly, if we change your OP, slightly, by asking the same question about another demigod, Herakles, do we not find the same silence? In other words, maybe no one commented on the absurdity of Jesus or Herakles as divine historical figures, because NO ONE WAS INTERESTED. The alternative is that folks did express reservations, but that work was expunged by subsequent rulers, however, arguing against that attitude, in my opinion, is the Letter to Gaius by Philo of Alexandria, which praises Herakles. If anyone should have written that Herakles' divine nature was a hoax, it would have been the uber Jewish scholar, Philo, but no, even he praises the supernatural accomplishments of Herakles, as if they had been genuine. Why didn't Philo simply ignore Herakles, rather than praise him? Money is the answer. Want an audience with the Emperor, praise Herakles. Who gave money for ridiculing the absurdity of Herakles' supernatural actions?

So, while it may seem, from our perspective, today, that it is strange not to encounter even a single dissenter to the crazy notions of Jesus as divine saviour of mankind, from the fourth to the seventeenth century, it may well have been the case, that no one cared enough to put ink to papyrus.

Finally, what about the Persian view of the conflict between the ostensibly Christian Armenian society, and the Zoroastrian committed Persians fighting in several wars, for literally hundreds of years in the second to sixth centuries? Do we have extant any written opinions from the Persians on the subject of Jesus, given the apparently fanatical belief in Jesus' divinity within Armenia? Was their faith based on preferring Roman rule to Persian dominance? Do we have extant today, writings from that era, by the Armenians, exposing the legends of Zarathustra and Mithra, as mere fables for children? Is the converse also true: Did the Persians not only praise Zarathustra, but also ridicule the Armenian's faith in Jesus?

The problem with writing, "reasonable", as opposed to documenting what had actually been written, is that literally everything is "reasonable" in religion and philosophy. What is unreasonable, in my opinion, is to express as fact, something which is clearly not established by empirical observation, but rather has been accepted on faith, or acknowledged on threat of death by decapitation. Do we expect to find very many tomes authored by dissenters, currently living in Tikrit, under the aegis of ISIL, expressing doubt about Mohammed the camel driver and thief of caravans, with his purported claims of flying baraq, the camel, during the night to Jerusalem?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Clearly some folks felt that belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth was absurd: Origen wrote Κατὰ Κέλσου, Contra Celsum, in the third century, 248 CE, if we can accept that dating. There would have been no need to write such a document, had there not been a significant quantity of doubters

This is an example that I like very much. If the hypothesis is correct, that the Jesus story was an invention of the fourth century, then we have four levels of subsequent invention.

First stratum: A fictional man Origen with his fictional books, which are subsequently fully written. In one of his fictional books (Contra Celsum), we find a second stratum.
Second stratum: A fictional man Celsus and his fictional book "True Word" that was quoted extensively in the fictional book of Origen. In the fictional book of Celsus, we find a third stratum.
Third stratum: A fictional Jew, which is an important source for the fictional Celsus. In the fictional reports of this Jew, we finally have the fourth stratum.
Fourth stratum: A fictional soldier Panthera, said to be the father of the fictional Jesus (against the doctrine of the inventors).

Try to imagine the scene in the palace of Constantin, in which this fake was invented by a group of inventors. This group had to coordinate their invention with other groups, which invent other fictional people and other fictional books with other fictional stratums.

This idea often makes my day

Sorry for off-topic. It just reminded me of this hypothesis

[MrMacSon]

This discussion is about whether or not it would be reasonable to expect that the historicity of Jesus would have been questioned by anyone in the populace of the Roman Empire (particularly the East) following the widespread publication of the Constantine Bible. For the purpose of the discussion it may be even assumed that the canonical books of the NT (the Jesus Story) were transmitted from the 1st (or 2nd centuries) to the 4th century as a legitimate series of manuscripts. This has nothing to do with the legitimacy or provenance of the Jesus Story, but everything to do with the question ....

• "What was the widespread political reception of the Jesus Story when it was published in the early 4th century"?
  
  Were everyone's thumbs up? YES we all certainly think that the Jesus Story happened almost 300 years ago as advertised !!!!
  
  Did everyone just take one look at it (or in the case of the illiterate listen to it being orated) and then convert from Plato and Homer readings to Jesus Story readngs?[/size]

Clearly some folks felt that belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth was absurd: Origen wrote Κατὰ Κέλσου, Contra Celsum, in the third century, 248 CE, if we can accept that dating. There would have been no need to write such a document, had there not been a significant quantity of doubters.

Secondly, it is interesting to read about the recent excavations in Belgium (Gaul), showing extensive 2nd century Roman temples, with many statues, and ornamental additions to various buildings, but no relics related to any aspect of Christianity. Zoroastrianism maybe, other Greek and Egyptian mythological figures, yes, Jewish influence: no.

There is also very little Christian archaeology in Judea before the 4th C; very few artifacts, too.

[Leucius Charinus]

Clearly some folks felt that belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth was absurd: Origen wrote Κατὰ Κέλσου, Contra Celsum, in the third century, 248 CE, if we can accept that dating. There would have been no need to write such a document, had there not been a significant quantity of doubters

This is an example that I like very much. If the hypothesis is correct, that the Jesus story was an invention of the fourth century, then we have four levels of subsequent invention.

First stratum: A fictional man Origen with his fictional books, which are subsequently fully written. In one of his fictional books (Contra Celsum), we find a second stratum.
Second stratum: A fictional man Celsus and his fictional book "True Word" that was quoted extensively in the fictional book of Origen. In the fictional book of Celsus, we find a third stratum.
Third stratum: A fictional Jew, which is an important source for the fictional Celsus. In the fictional reports of this Jew, we finally have the fourth stratum.
Fourth stratum: A fictional soldier Panthera, said to be the father of the fictional Jesus (against the doctrine of the inventors).

Try to imagine the scene in the palace of Constantin, in which this fake was invented by a group of inventors. This group had to coordinate their invention with other groups, which invent other fictional people and other fictional books with other fictional stratums.

This idea often makes my day :mrgreen:

Sorry for off-topic. It just reminded me of this hypothesis

Glad your feeling jovial Kunigunde Kreuzerin but the hypothesis does not require the 4th level (Panthera). If you're interested in reading other literary works of the 4th century (one possibly assembled in the rule of Constantine) very much like this NT fabrication, have a look at the "mockumentary" of the Historia Augusta. This has very similar levels of fabrication, the use of masses of forged documents and forged sources, and even other forged sources who disagree with the earlier forged sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustan_History


However the 4th level most likely represents a reaction of the heretics to the NT Bible and we do not have to suppose that Constantine wrote the heretical books over which he had no control (other than search and destroy and burning). Specifically the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

This is a book which asserts that a Roman soldier raped Mary (while she had her periods) and as a result Jesus was conceived. In my estimation this is just the type of a satire which would be expected to appear as a reaction to the "Jesus Story" found in Bullneck's Bible.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

This idea often makes my day

Glad your feeling jovial Kunigunde Kreuzerin but the hypothesis ...

What makes me smile is not the "absurdity" of the hypothesis, but the idea of this group of glorious inventors. This reminds me of some [wiki][/wiki] stories of Jorge Luis Borges.

... but the hypothesis does not require the 4th level (Panthera). However the 4th level most likely represents a reaction of the heretics to the NT Bible and we do not have to suppose that Constantine wrote the heretical books over which he had no control (other than search and destroy and burning). ... In my estimation this is just the type of a satire which would be expected to appear as a reaction to the "Jesus Story" found in Bullneck's Bible.

How could the inventors of the story know what the heretics would argue against it?

[Stephan Huller]

And even stupider is the fact that Origen-citing-Celsus-citing-Jew makes incredibly unusual statements that a Jew in the fourth century would never have made ie that they give assent to the existence of a "son of God" figure in heaven, that the Jew is intimate with verses of Homer in short he is just like the "bad Jews" of the early second century (Elisha b Abuyah).

Another wrinkle or layer is that the text was first written in one draft by Origen in Alexandria and then he re-arranges or restarts the material in Caesarea. It says so in the book itself.

Celsus makes reference to Philo or at least Jewish apologists writing in Greek who interpret the 5teuch allegorically.

He speaks of the Jews recently engaging in the Bar Khochba revolt.

But also and most importantly he has certainly read or is aware of Irenaeus or his source for information about the heretics (or alternative IS Irenaeus's source which is even more problematic for this shitty theory). I say "shitty" rather than scheisslich because I know that's not good German

[Leucius Charinus]

This idea often makes my day :mrgreen:

Glad your feeling jovial Kunigunde Kreuzerin but the hypothesis ...

What makes me smile is not the "absurdity" of the hypothesis, but the idea of this group of glorious inventors.

Then you should really start to laugh when you read about the 9th century group of inventors known as Pseudo-Isidore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals

Including among other forgeries ...

4.An extensive collection of approximately 100 forged papal letters, most of which were allegedly written by the Roman bishops of the first three centuries.

... but the hypothesis does not require the 4th level (Panthera). However the 4th level most likely represents a reaction of the heretics to the NT Bible and we do not have to suppose that Constantine wrote the heretical books over which he had no control (other than search and destroy and burning). ... In my estimation this is just the type of a satire which would be expected to appear as a reaction to the "Jesus Story" found in Bullneck's Bible.

How could the inventors of the story know what the heretics would argue against it?

This is easily answered. They "knew" in exactly the same manner that "Origen" could know in the 3rd century all about the heretical "Clementine literature" authored by an Arian c.330 CE. The 4th century orthodoxy simply interpolated mentions of the 4th century heretics and their books into their very own "Church History".
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature

It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. One of these quotations occurs in the Philokalia of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian Opus imperfectum in Matt.[3]

Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius.

Oh dear! Where is this leading?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=771
On dating the Gnostic literature after 325 CE (assuming the canonical literature is 1st or 2nd century)