Religion
Related: About this forumDid Socrates Exist?
Actually he did and we know he was in fact an actual historical person with a high degree of certainty.
The evidence for Socrates
The real Socrates, if there was one, was born in Athens around 470 BCE, lived in that city almost his entire life, acquired a reputation as a philosopher, and was executed by the city government when he was about 70 years old. Many other details about his life are probably true if that much is true, but the question of his historicity will be settled if we have strong evidence for a man by that name having lived at that time, acquired such a reputation, and died in that manner.
Socrates is mentioned in documents written by three people who were alive during his purported lifetime. Whether the three writers worked independently of one another cannot be known with certainty. On the face of things, it is not obvious that any of them influenced the others, but it is hardly inconceivable that they could have. Socrates appears as a character in at least two of Aristophanes' plays. He appears as an interlocutor in a substantial portion of Plato's writings, and he plays a similar role in some of Xenophon's work.[2] Xenophon's material is similar to some of Plato's but not entirely consistent.
Aristophanes' work is clearly satirical, not biographical. From the play itself, we cannot know whether he was making fun of a real philosopher known to his audience or ridiculing certain ideas that were much discussed at the time and using a fictional character to embody them. The former does seem prima facie more likely, but the latter cannot yet be ruled out.
Aristophanes produced his plays while Socrates (if he existed) was still alive. Plato and Xenophon did their work after his purported death, both of them including Socrates' defense against the charges that led to his execution. Both writers give the impression that they had known Socrates and studied under his tutelage.
These writers are our best evidence for Socrates' historicity. If they do not suffice to overcome reasonable doubt, then no other documents in which he is mentioned can make up for their lack.
We are not concerned here with the accuracy of any particular detail in any of the documents. Plato's dialogues are certainly not transcriptions of actual conversations between Socrates and other people. The occasional autobiographical comment attributed to Socrates might or might not be factual. The modern historical consensus is that, especially in the later dialogues, the Socrates character is speaking Plato's mind more than Socrates' own. But we're asking whether the man was real, never minding for the moment how accurately Plato and the others portrayed him.
A writer who falsely portrays a certain individual existing in a certain place at a certain time may have one of three mind sets. He might think his portrayal is truthful and want his readers to believe it. In that case his writing is simply erroneous. He might know his portrayal is not truthful but want his readers to believe it anyway. In that case his writing is fraudulent. He might know his portrayal is not truthful but not expect his readers to think otherwise. In that case his writing is fictional.
We're probably safe in dismissing as absurd the possibility that all three of these writers made a mistake. They were not passing on legends or oral traditions. They were writing of a man who achieved fame and was executed in their lifetime. They could have misquoted him. They could have been mistaken about a lot of things. It is unlikely they could all have made a mistake about his existence.
There is no apparent motive for fraud and no way it could have succeeded. The documents were produced in Athens for Athenian readers. Those readers would have known whether Aristophanes's Socrates was parodying any real philosopher. They would have known whether Plato and Xenophon were writing about any execution that had really occurred within living memory. Barely a generation after Plato wrote the Apology, though, Athenians were talking as if they took Socrates' historicity for granted. Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, made straightforward references to him. There is also a reference to Socrates' execution and the reasons for it in a speech attributed to an orator called Aechines less than half a century after the event.
For about the same reason, it is improbable that Socrates was simply a fiction. People can believe and have believed in the historicity of fictional characters even when the characters' creators did not intend such. The setting has to be somewhat removed from the readers' own lives, though. Athenian trials were very public, and their juries had 500 members. If Socrates was not real and Plato expected his readers to know he was not real, he had good reason. Athenians would indeed have known that their city had not actually executed any famous philosophers within recent memory. (The same reasoning could be used against the error hypothesis if it were not already so implausible.)
The most parsimonious accounting of the evidence, then, says that Plato and the others were writing about a real man who really was executed, and that his name was Socrates.
That is, unless some fact not yet mentioned is inconsistent with this accounting. Socrates is supposed to have been executed in the year 399 BCE. There was presumably an official record of the proceedings. It has not been found, but neither have any other of the city's records from that period. If we did have those records and had reason to believe they were complete, but they did not mention Socrates, then his historicity would be more questionable. Another example of negative evidence would be a contemporary document in which the author criticized people for thinking Socrates was real. It would not prove his nonexistence, but we would have to explain why, if Socrates was real, anybody living at that time might have thought otherwise.
We can still ask how we know that the documents attributed to Plato and the others were actually written by those people. If they are not authentic, then the case for Socrates' historicity will be greatly weakened.
I have not had an opportunity yet to research the evidence for the authenticity of Plato's dialogues or the works attributed to other famous Greeks of his era. For the time being, I note only the apparently unanimous consensus of professional historians and assume that there is a good reason for such a consensus. In a future article, we can use Plato as an example -- but make no mistake in suggesting that Socrates' historical existence is necessarily any easier to prove than Plato.
Generally speaking, I do not believe in conspiracies. There is potentially big money to be made in challenging academic orthodoxies. Heretics don't even need strong evidence or good arguments. All they need is a hint of evidence and some arguments that sound good to people who enjoy believing that the experts don't really know anything.
There are a handful of scholars who have challenged Socrates' historicity, advocating the fiction hypothesis, but nobody to my knowledge doubts that Plato's dialogues were written by a philosopher named Plato who lived in Athens during and after the time that Socrates would have lived there if he had been real. Nor does anyone seem to doubt that the works attributed to Aristotle were written by a philosopher named Aristotle who was a student of Plato.
That nobody questions these things does not mean they must be true. The question is whether we laymen are justified in believing them on the grounds that no expert doubts them. Absent compelling evidence that the experts have made a mistake, the answer is that we are justified in a tentative assumption that they know what they're talking about. The emphasis must be on tentative, though. We are never justified in supposing that the experts are infallible. If we have evidence against the authorities, we are justified in doubting the authorities. But we do need that evidence.
Worth noting is the documentation on people referencing Socrates' existence. For example, Xenophon is known to history as the leader of the first Greek military expedition into Persia. He later wrote a book about the expedition (sometimes called "The March of the Ten Thousand" . The witnesses for Jesus, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, aren't known to history with any more certainty than Jesus is.
To summarize: We have apparently primary sources for Socrates. We have contemporaneous accounts of his existence. We have documents whose existence is not easily explained except on the supposition that Socrates was a real person. It is strong evidence for a historical Socrates.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Socrates_vs_Jesus
edhopper
(33,543 posts)Thanks.
And of course there is nothing in Socrates life that would makes us question he was a man who lived at that time.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,543 posts)All we are is dust in the wind.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)Jesus had some water, said "Wine'd be better yet".
Elvis picked up a guitar and made all women wet.
Elvis he died young - Jesus he died younger.
Elvis died of too much - Jesus died of hunger.
Jesus sang down through the ages: "Do like you'd have'em
do you".
Elvis rocked the universe with be-bop-a-lu-la -
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Or maybe it was Elvis, you know they kinda look the same.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...I wouldn't worry anymore.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They are not predicated upon any superhuman characteristics of the character of Socrates. So it's perfectly fine if he didn't exist, and was perhaps merely a foil like Diogenes used to refer to Solon, so he could say controversial things without getting killed for it. ("Solon used to say, "...)
If Jesus didn't exist, Christian theology is torpedoed.
If a man existed upon which to base the biblical character of jesus, but he had NO supernatural powers, Christian theology is torpedoed.
If Socrates didn't exist at all, it changes not a whit about the contributions to human thought/knowledge made by someone, and possibly misattributed to a man who didn't even exist. The material stands on its own.
Unless you invest credibility in appeals to authority, which the character of Socrates probably would have found offensive anyway. (ooh, Socrates said it? It must be true!)
edhopper
(33,543 posts)that anyone thinks what Socrates in Plato's dialogues says are the true words of Socrates.
He is a character that conveys Socrates' philosophy according to Plato, but not actual quotes.
struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)... There are three major sources for our understanding of this context: the comic dramatist Aristophanes, and Socrates' students Plato and Xenophon. The first two of these are clearly literary rather than historical sources, and Xenophon must be identified as a partisan of the oligarchic party .... the trial in 399 BCE was in fact Athenian democracy's response to the oligarchic reactions of 411, 404, and 401. A half century after the trial, Aeschines the Rhetorician could take for granted a widespread understanding among Athenians that they had condemned Socrates to death because he was the teacher of Critias, a leader of The Thirty who sought to destroy the democracy in 404 ... Xenophon tried hard to convince the reader that Socrates was not a supporter of Critias and The Thirty. Plato's Socrates did deny membership in an oligarchic secret society .... even were this the truth, Socrates' aristocratic cronyism would evidence to the average Athenian his membership in one of the aristocratic political clubs .... And those clubs supported Critias and The Thirty .... Plato presents the charges put forward by one Meletus who represented the poets, not those of Anytus who represented the political interests ..... Fortunately, we can also take into account the charges against Socrates attributed to Polycrates .... When faced with these charges, Socrates -- on all accounts -- responded very antagonistically towards his accusers .... But he also acted antagonistically towards the assembled Athenians ...
I. F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates
Southern Humanities Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (Summer 1989), pp. 264-267
reviewed by Gordon Welty
Socrates has close associations with the oligarchic factions during a period of struggle over the future of Athenian democracy. His stiudent, Plato, himself an anti-democrat, came from a well-connected family, and shortly after his death Plato's student Aristotle began tutoring Alexander, the son of King Philip II in Macedon. Several years after the death of Alexander, the Macedonians repressed Athenian democracy. Whatever role Socrates played in the anti-democratic movements of the late fifth century BCE, his student Plato was, over a long life, able to promulgate anti-democratic ideas in (say) Syracus (where his disciple Calippus briefly became tyrant by assassinating Dion) and in his Athenian Academy. And Aristotle was similarly able to promote these ideas to the ruling class in Macedon
The protagonist Jesus in the Christian stories, on the other hand, is not associated with any major faction of his time. He sides with neither the Sadducee nor Pharisee factions that appeared at the collapse of the Hasmonean dynasty; nor does he appear to side with the Romans who had seized control after that collapse, who are portrayed as his executioners; nor with the Roman-client-king Herod the Great and his successors. In the decades immediately following the execution of the protagonist, his followers do not manage to obtain a quick approval of his teachings by the ruling class: instead, he apparently first enters the official history books as a minor figure executed as a criminal
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)the other a homeless peasant in a conquered land
Which name should we expect to consume more contemporary ink?
edhopper
(33,543 posts)a man who arrives in Jerusalem to the cries of the masses, so that the whole city was aware, proclaiming him king and then tried and executed in a very public trial in front of the ruler of the city was not noticed by anyone at the time?
struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)Pontius Pilate seems to have held office for about a decade in Judaea
There is a reference to him in Tacitus (probably from the early second century), several in Josephus (from the second half of the first century), and a reference in Philo of Alexandria (from the mid first century) -- plus whatever one might find in the canonical and non-canonical gospels. None of these accounts were first hand, and many date from decades afterwards. Josephus and Philo seem to discuss the same event, but unsurprisingly do not agree in all details. Josephus, of course, was a Roman collaborator whereas Philo had Herodian relatives
The other evidence of Pilate comes from a stone fragment that can be putatively reconstructed to give his name and title, discovered only in the 1960s
If viewed from his minor province, Pilate was an important official. But viewed on a larger scale, he was a nobody and got little mention
The historians of that time were most interested in the power politics: if Herod's slave Simon burnt the palace and rampaged across the country-side, or if the shepherd Athronges and his brothers attacked a Roman garrison, or if Judas led a revolt against the tax-census of Quirinius, military power would be invoked and the trouble-maker earned a paragraph or two in someone's history
Those, however, executed as common criminals were killed rather casually, and without much mention, as one gathers from Seneca:
edhopper
(33,543 posts)Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)
And being pronounced king by all the city would go unrecorded, even though it sounds like a major political event.
What do you make of the sole mention of James by Josephus? Wasn't he a common criminal?
struggle4progress
(118,268 posts)they finally appear some decades after the stories they tell, and the arrangement of the stories is probably intended more to make certain points, rather than to lay out a defensible historical sequence. In particular, there is no obvious reason to think the story of the triumphant entry into Jerusalem fits into a genuine historical sequence culminating a week later with the crucifixion -- and, in fact, the palm branches and cries of Hosanna! have suggested to some scholars that the entry-into-Jerusalem story actually reflects an autumn Feast of Tabernacles setting rather than a spring Passover setting. If that interpretation is correct, then the entry-into-Jerusalem did not immediately produce insurrectionist fears
(2) Since the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus seems to me rather credibly to include some later interpolation, the passage in Josephus on James, brother of Jesus, may also involve a later edit. It certainly is plausible that while the Romans were swapping the management, locals took some opportunities to settle scores, rather along the lines Josephus suggests. Overall the story in Chapter Nine of Book XX in the Jewish Antiquities is again about the local upper-class -- how Jesus, son of Damneus, became high priest, or that King Agrippa stripped Jesus-son-of-Damneus from his office and replaced him with Jesus-son-of-Gamaliel, with the high priests then splitting into grumpy factions that sometimes threw stones at each other
edhopper
(33,543 posts)it's hard to keep straight here because of all the different posters.
But I am not a mythicist, I am just saying that though I have no reason to think that there wasn't a man named Yeshua.
There is very little in the NT we can accept as factual. And I think that is a bigger issue than simply his existence.
No one debates Joseph Smith lived. Does that validate any of Mormonism?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The point is, with both Socrates and Pilate, the probability that they existed is quite high. Your Jesus, not so much. Doesn't mean he didn't exist, it means the probability that he did is quite low compared to other people we know about from ancient greco-roman civilization.