Who was the first person to claim Jesus never exsisted?

[Peter Kirby]

Peter would like me to move on. So, I assume he concedes there is no such documentation.

No need to assume. I already said so. Second post in this thread.

Now, logic would say,

I'm not saying your logic is right, but...

if the Romans were trying to put down a revolt 70 A.D. and one of the charges for the unrest was that they executed Jesus (30 A.D.), as well as the death of James the Just (62 A.D.) by the Sanhedrin, wouldn't Josephus make note that this cult was a hoax, that Jesus never, ever existed? That James the Just was a madman who had no such brother named Jesus?

If so, Origen read it with great dismay, and Eusebius or somebody else replaced it with the Testimonium Flavianum.

[John T]

"If so, Origen read it with great dismay, and Eusebius or somebody else replaced it with the Testimonium Flavianum."...Peter Kirby

Let's say for the sake of argument I grant you that but that is not to say I agree.

Still, don't you find it strange that as the Christian movement rapidly spread throughout the Roman Empire and grew within the government itself that no 1st/2nd century historian saw fit to point out that Jesus and his brother James never existed? Dio Cassius was said to enjoy writing about rumors and gossip yet, did not see fit to point out that the Flavian Dynasty knew that Jesus never existed?

Do you know if Richard Carrier ever bothered to plug that into his calculations while using his pseudo-Bayes's Theorem?

Sincerely,
John T

[Peter Kirby]

"If so, Origen read it with great dismay, and Eusebius or somebody else replaced it with the Testimonium Flavianum."...Peter Kirby

Let's say for the sake of argument I grant you that but that is not to say I agree.

Likewise. I am not assuming, as you do, that we'd be awash in ancient historians arguing for the non-existence of Jesus, if he had no existence.

Still, don't you find it strange that as the Christian movement rapidly spread throughout the Roman Empire and grew within the government itself that no 1st/2nd century historian saw fit to point out that Jesus and his brother James never existed? Dio Cassius was said to enjoy writing about rumors and gossip yet, did not see fit to point out that the Flavian Dynasty knew that Jesus never existed?

Dio Cassius survives only in an epitome made by Christians. In one of the few passages pertaining to them that survive from this historian (in book 72), his epitomizer chooses to quarrel with him and claims that his error is likely intentional.

This is what Dio says about the matter, but he is apparently in error, whether intentionally or otherwise; and yet I am inclined to believe his error was chiefly intentional. It surely must be so, for he was not ignorant of the division of soldiers that bore the special name of the "Thundering" Legion, — indeed he mentions it in the list along with the others, — a title which was given it for no other reason (for no other is reported) than because of the incident that p31occurred in this very war. It was precisely this incident that saved the Romans on this occasion and brought destruction upon the barbarians, and not Arnuphis, the magician; for Marcus is not reported to have taken pleasure in the company of magicians or in witchcraft. Now the incident I have reference to is this: Marcus had a division of soldiers (the Romans call a division a legion) from Melitene; and these people are all worshippers of Christ. Now it is stated that in this battle, when Marcus found himself at a loss what to do in the circumstances and feared for his whole army, the prefect approached him and told him that those who are called Christians can accomplish anything whatever by their prayers and that in the army there chanced to be a whole division of this sect. Marcus on hearing this appealed to them to pray to their God; and when they had prayed, their God immediately gave ear and smote the enemy with a thunderbolt and comforted the Romans with a shower of rain. Marcus was greatly astonished at this and not only honoured the Christians by an official decree but also named the legion the "thundering" Legion. It is also reported that there is a letter of Marcus extant on the subject. But the Greeks, though they know that the division was called the "Thundering" Legion and themselves bear witness to the fact, nevertheless make no statement whatever about the reason for its name.

If Dio can be brought to task by his epitomizer for such an error, he could also be cut up by the same for making claims much more injurious.

[GakuseiDon]

Forgive me for belaboring this point. However, I think it is pertinent to determining if there was a historical Jesus.

Can anyone provide a clear-cut example of an ancient author that asserted that Jesus never, ever existed?

Not to be confused with someone who wrote they did not believe in the miracles or resurrection of Jesus but a statement that emphatically claims that a man named Jesus who Christians claimed was crucified by the Romans around 30 A.D. never, ever existed.

Richard Carrier discusses this in OHJ between pages 349 and 355. I'll dig out some quotes. Carrier sees hints of assertions that Jesus never existed on earth in:
1. Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho",
2. Letters like 2 Peter
3. In the 'original redaction' of "Ascension of Isaiah".

1. On Justin Martyr, Carrier writes (my bolding throughout below) on pages 350/1:

• And yet we do have hints that some sectarian Christians were indeed gainsaying the new historicist reliance on the exoteric myths as actual his­tories. A hint of the existence of doubters of Jesus' historicity appears in the character of the Jewish opponent created by Justin Martyr in his fictional Dialogue with Trypho in the mid-second century:
  
  • But the Christ, if he has indeed been born, and exists anywhere, is unknown, and doesn't even yet know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him, and make him appear to all. But you, on the basis of groundless hearsay, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are now irresponsibly doomed. **
  This could simply reflect a natural second-century Jewish criticism, not too unlike that found in the pagan critic Celsus of the same period, who argued (in his now-lost anti-Christian treatise that Origen critiques in Against Celsus) that the Gospels were the only evidence of historicity the Chris­tians had, and yet were at best groundless hearsay. Celsus argues from the unproven assumption that they embellish a real story, while Justin's Trypho takes it one step further and suggests they might have been wholly fabri­cated.
  
  Notably, Justin's reply to this suggestion is simply that 'we have not believed empty fables [kenois mythois], or stories without any proof [ana­podeiktois logois], but stories filled with the Spirit of God, and bursting with power, and flourishing with grace', which merely gainsays the charge without any proof offered. Indeed, the dialogue depicts Justin threatening to leave in a huff, rather than actually presenting any evidence that Trypho was in any way wrong; they change the subject instead.

** Carrier cites Doherty here, writing "On which see the important remarks of Doherty, 'Jesus: Neither God nor Man', pp. 696-98." (Doherty also thought that this hinted that there were those who questioned the existence of an earthly Jesus).


2. On 2 Peter, Carrier writes on page 351:

• More importantly, this looks very much like the response given to follow Christians (of some opposing sect) in 2 Peter 1-2. This is a second-century forgery, passed off as written by the apostle Peter, an example of how readily Christians fabri­cated not only their own history but the documents attesting it (see, again, Element 44). There we see an attack upon certain fellow Christians who were actually teaching that the story of Jesus was (as Justin also denies) a 'cleverly devised myth' [sesophismenois mythois] and who were thereby creating a 'destructive heresy'. Similar hints can be found in other forged Epistles (e.g. 1 Tim. 1.3-4; 4.6-7; 2 Tim. 4.3-4; 1 Jn 1.1-3; 4.1-3; 2 Jn 7-11; etc.). In 2 Peter we also see a related anxiety over the strange celestial Jesus found in Paul's letters--to the extent that now only the properly 'informed' were authorized to interpret them (2 Pet. 3 15-17).
  
  Obviously the forgers of 2 Peter would have to represent these Chris­tians as introducing a novel heresy. But in reality, these may have been Christians still connected to the original mysteries who knew the exoteric myths were only cleverly constructed allegories. The fact that this is all we ever hear of them demonstrates that we cannot expect to have heard more-for here, clearly, 2 Peter is attacking some Christian heresy we know nothing else about and have no documents from. Instead, we get a forged 'eyewitness testimony' cleverly designed to refute the claim that the Gospel was a myth--refuting it, that is, with a fabricated historical report. This letter is therefore a decisive proof-of-concept for the entire transition from the original Christian mysteries to a historicizing sect fabricating its own historical testimonies to 'prove' its claims.

3. On "Ascension of Isaiah", Carrier writes on pages 351/2:

• The Ascension of Isaiah is another example of this: we can tell the origi­nal redaction had Jesus die in outer space (it therefore was composed by a Christian sect who clearly adopted what I am calling minimal mythicism), but later, some historicizing Christians inserted a section that had Jesus incongruously die on earth at the hands of Pilate in a summary of their own fabricated Gospel (see Chapter 3, §1). This appears to be what typically happened to the evidence. It was erased, doctored or rewritten to support a historicist party line against a mythicist one (see, again, Element 44; as well as Chapter 7, §7).

[Blood]

The Mithras movement spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire at the same time as Christianity.

No historian wrote that Mithras didn't exist.

Therefore, Mithras existed.

[Stephan Huller]

Carrier cites Doherty here, writing "On which see the important remarks of Doherty, 'Jesus: Neither God nor Man', pp. 696-98." (Doherty also thought that this hinted that there were those who questioned the existence of an earthly Jesus)

Why do debates develop in this (idiotic) manner? On the one hand you have atheist partisans like Carrier who want to use Justin to claim that there were people who believed that Jesus never existed in antiquity - bullshit. On the other you have the religious partisans who want to use the deceptive manner than Carrier uses evidence to bolster a political or social movement as 'proof' that Jesus did exist - double bullshit.

There are other - more likely IMO - ways to interpret Justin's original statement - i.e. that the heretics believed that Jesus was a god who was 'real' and came to earth. Why don't we cut to the chase and admit (a) Carrier was full of shit but (b) there were Christians who didn't believe that Jesus was a human being. Doesn't that just end the discussion so we can get on to other things?

[arnoldo]

The Mithras movement spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire at the same time as Christianity.

No historian wrote that Mithras didn't exist.

Therefore, Mithras existed.

Justin Martyr has the following to say about Mithras.

Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66

"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn."
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithr ... nity#note1

[Peter Kirby]

There are other - more likely IMO - ways to interpret Justin's original statement - i.e. that the heretics believed that Jesus was a god who was 'real' and came to earth. Why don't we cut to the chase and admit (a) Carrier was full of shit but (b) there were Christians who didn't believe that Jesus was a human being. Doesn't that just end the discussion so we can get on to other things?

I don't agree with Doherty or Carrier, but I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of Justin either.

Personally I enjoy a good discussion.

I still stand by this 2003 "note on Trypho."

http://www.christianorigins.com/trypho.html
A Note on Trypho
A correction to a misrepresentation of Trypho.
by Peter Kirby (May 8, 2003)
This quote, often in abbreviated form, is sometimes used to support the idea that there were doubts in antiquity about the historicity of Jesus:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

The context of the quote is The Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, chapter 8. It is easily available in English translation online.

I am not making any claims to the historicity of the dialogue itself--as far as I am concerned, Trypho could be entirely the invention of the writer. I refer to the character speaking in the text.

Trypho is not referring to the non-existence or obscurity of Jesus, whose historicity he takes for granted throughout the debate, but the Messiah--the expected anointed one. The Jewish interlocutor is stating that Jesus has been made up into a Christ by the Christians; if the actual Messiah was born and lived somewhere, then that Messiah is entirely unknown. The idea that Christ is unknown, if he exists, does not fit well the erroneous substitution of the meaning "Jesus" (as in "Jesus--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all") for the story of Jesus is known, and Jesus could not be alive in the time of Trypho and needing Elias to anoint him.

The Jewish opponent Trypho accepts the historicity of Jesus throughout the Dialogue yet doubts that Jesus was the Messiah ("Christ" in Greek). In chapter 32, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified." (Trypho is referring to Deut. - Anyone hung on a tree is accursed!) In chapter 36, Trypho said, "Let these things be so as you say--namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man [Jesus] be He of whom these prophecies were made." In chapter 49, Trypho said, "But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man [Jesus] is not He [the Christ]." In chapter 74, Trypho said, "We know that you quoted these because we asked you. But it does not appear to me that this Psalm which you quoted last from the words of David refers to any other than the Father and Maker of the heavens and earth. You, however, asserted that it referred to Him [Jesus] who suffered, whom you also are eagerly endeavouring to prove to be Christ." Justin Martyr concludes by saying in chapter 142, "I can wish no better thing for you, sirs, than this, that, recognising in this way that intelligence is given to every man, you may be of the same opinion as ourselves, and believe that Jesus is the Christ of God." It is pretty clear that Trypho accepts the historicity of this man, Jesus, who was crucified, yet doubts that Jesus was the Messiah ("Christ").

~~~~

I will add a bit to this. My note focused on the first part of the quote. The second part, "you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves" does seem amenable to any number of interpretations, including the above interpretation, the Huller interpretation, and the the bog standard ("BS") interpretation advocated by the much-discussed authors "D" and "C". However, with the context provided by the other quotes of the Dialogue with Trypho, there is less room for doubt that the above interpretation is meant by Justin.

[Peter Kirby]

"I saw some disciples of Bolingbroke, more ingenious than educated, who denied the existence of Jesus because the story of the three wise men and the star and the massacre of the innocents are, they said, the height of eccentricity; the contradiction of the two genealogies that Matthew and Luke gave is especially a reason that these young men allege to persuade themselves that there was no Jesus."

Voltaire, Dieu et les hommes, 1769

Funny enough:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4 ... id=2&uid=4

"Yet no other English deist was so falsely quoted by Voltaire... Bolingbroke did not like Voltaire personally... "

Perhaps even this reference in 1769 is not "clear cut"?

Dupuis, certainly, published in 1795 and writing earlier, makes the cut: "The existence of Christ, the restorer, cannot be accepted as a historical fact, as little as the conversation between the snake and the woman..." (Origine).

Napoleon is said to have earnestly asked the question. (Perhaps a reason behind the churchman's pamphlet questioning the existence of Napoleon.)

I cannot locate the document supposed to be parodied here, Historic Doubts Relative to Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps someone else can?

[Peter Kirby]

What can we conclude from this?

I will answer my own question with some scholarship on the development of the analysis of mythology in western culture.

Peter G. Bietenholz, in Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age, pp. 333-335, writes:

Not until the uproar caused by Strauss' deflation of the supernatural Jesus did Western civilization establish a workable set of requirements for the documentation of both historical fact and historical myth or legend. Westerners have, as it were, become programmed to ask: is that story true? So much so that, ever since, they have had difficulties in coming to grips with other cultures, which have kept aloof from routine questioning of this kind. We stand at the end of a long development that began in spot check-fashion during the Renaissance. The progress was, as we have seen, tortuous. Misdirected reasoning, as with Kircher's Tower of Babel or Caze's royal Joan of Arc, led into blind alleys. The theory of accomodation, as Semler used it, obstructed the proper understanding of myth, and so did late explosions of Euhemerism in works such as those by the abbe Banier and Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus. Instances of hypercriticism, such as Voltaire's denial of the historical Moses and Dupuis' denial of the historical Jeuss, point forward to more disciplined manifestations of scholarly obsession in the nineteenth century.

When, with Heyne, the modern notion of myth first appeared, it was confined to a remote past of archaic prehistory. The formation of myths was attributed to a long process of oral transmission. While parallels between the primordial age of myth and primitive cultures in the contemporary world had been noted from the time of Fontenelle, 'mythical' and 'primitive' had remained inseperable and often synonymous notions. So much so, that Heyne had refused to apply the term 'myth' to Virgil's and even Homer's elaborations of the pristine tales. Strauss realized that his work significantly modified this concept. The myth of Christ's resurrection had been born and taken a firm hold among the first generation of his disciples, in the fully literate society of the Augustan empire. ... it was Strauss, who truly intitiated the modern study of the genesis of myths.

Thus the explanation of this historical fact starts from the commonplace:

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

The power of this explanation, beyond its full consistency with our understanding of the modern mindset and how it is different, is that it also explains why any number of other figures of questionable historicity (Moses or Odysseus, for example) did not have any discussion of their non-historicity by the ancient writers.

In addition to these facts, it seems hard to imagine that anyone other than a very few writers (Josephus, Philo, Justus of Tiberias), who had been in first century Judea, would have any true knowledge of the matter. Two of them say nothing at all regarding Jesus, and the third has been interpolated.