Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 203 of 560 (617261)
05-27-2011 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by crashfrog
05-26-2011 7:57 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
Here you go, begging the question again. What evidence is there that there ever was a Christianity "under Jesus"? Maybe the reason that Christianity doesn't make much of a splash until Paul is because it didn't exist until Paul? Not that Paul invented it, per se, but that somebody did and then Paul heard about it.
Of course it isn't really begging the question (so that's ANOTHER bad argument) for the simple reason that I am not arguing that Jesus existed, and in fact my arguments are agnostic on the issue.
It is your claim that, assuming Jesus existed, Christianity MUST have been really, really important in his lifetime. Well, where's the evidence for that ? Are you really setting up the false dichotomy that the Gospels must be either almost completely accurate or total fiction ?
quote:
We have an abundance of primary sources about Socrates, including reports by people who were at his trial, and his frequent mention in the writings of his students and other people who met him. We have busts of Socrates sculpted from life. Of course, much of what we know about Socrates could be Plato's invention but there's enough contemporary sources from people who directly knew him that there's just no question about it.
An abundance is overstating it. Plato's writings are the main bulk of it, and are mainly about putting forward Plato's own views with Socrates as a character. Aside from Plato Xenophon and appearances in Aristophanes' plays are pretty much all you have in contemporary sources (Aristotle is not a contemporary, born after Socrates died).
And do you have any evidence of a bust of Socrates carved from life ?
quote:
My argument has nothing to do with the existence of genuine relics. How could the existence of genuine relics support the nonexistence of Jesus? You're just being absurd.
Crash, please try harder to be honest. You wrote:
And therefore the explanation that it never existed is more parsimonious than the explanation that it did at one time exist, but coincidentally was also lost. (But, somehow, the Crown of Thorns and the True Cross, half a tablet that says "INRI", somebody kept those, but nobody thought to hang on to Jesus's execution writ, or anything he actually wrote? Absurd.)
Obviously you were asserting that at least some of the relics were genuine (if Jesus existed) because how else could their survival possibly be evidence that the records would have survived too.
quote:
No, it's not, because we know the census records existed and now we know they don't.
So what is the difference between the census records and the crucifixion records ? According to you, we know both were made. So far as either of us can tell we don't have those records (remember I challenged you to produce evidence that 10% survived and you produced nothing). So what's the problem with concluding that the crucifixion records were also destroyed, other than the fact that it is inconvenient to your argument ?
quote:
We don't know that about the Jesus execution record, thus, it's a totally different situation and the most reasonable, most parsimonious conclusion is that it never existed. It makes quite a bit of difference if we're talking about records that existed and now don't, versus records that never existed at all. This is such an elementary and basic point that I wonder how someone with your tremendous intellect could fail to grasp it.
But I'm not talking about any specific crucifixion record. I am talking about the crucifixion records in general. I explicitly said so. It's hardly a slur on my intellect if you fail to notice that. Nor if you fail to note my actual argument. Your argument relies on the survival of a large proportion of the crucifixion records for that place and time. But you can't show evidence of even one surviving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2011 7:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2011 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 204 of 560 (617262)
05-27-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by crashfrog
05-26-2011 8:03 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
Well, could be! There is, of course, no evidence for this view at all.
We may get to that later, although I have presented arguments here in the past.
quote:
But even if that were true, how would that be the "historic Jesus"? Does the existence of Hoagy Carmichael prove that there was a "historic James Bond"?
In much the same way that the person on whom the original stores were based would be the "historic King Arthur" - only rather closer.
quote:
Indeed. And that's why the "mythical Jesus" position is so reasonable...
Relying on irrational arguments hardly makes it reasonable.
quote:
...- the environment was perfect for the injection of a completely mythical savior, just as it was for John Frum and Jesus Malverde.
But this is just a "could be" - it requires evidence to back it up. So far you're coming up rather short on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2011 8:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Jazzns, posted 05-27-2011 11:06 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 207 of 560 (617309)
05-27-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Jazzns
05-27-2011 11:06 AM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
I think are you going much too far here. Crash's style is very aggressive which may be obscuring his main point here but I think it is not the job of someone suggesting that Jesus was not real to bear the burden of proof. Just because Christianity is ~2000 years old does not give it some kind of grandfathered exception to the principles used in modern inquiry.
I think that you are missing the point that Crash IS making arguments (and sometimes denies that he is making them which is a pretty good sign that he can't honestly defend them) - and they are pretty bad. That IS the main issue that I am discussing. I'm not even arguing that a case against a historical Jesus can't be made - only that Crash is doing a dismal job of presenting one.
I think that you are also wrong about the burden of proof. We have evidence that needs to be explained, and the burden of proof is on anybody who offers an explanation. If there were no evidence at all Crash would be absolutely right. But there is and he isn't.
Now I happen to think that the existence of the Gospels presents a prima facie case for a historical Jesus - not enough to prove it (we're dealing with history here) but enough to establish it as a sensible default. I mean, that's what we'd do with other historical figures, right ? Is there anyone else treated as fictional solely because the records of them aren't very good ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Jazzns, posted 05-27-2011 11:06 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2011 2:26 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 05-27-2011 3:47 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 212 of 560 (617337)
05-27-2011 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Jazzns
05-27-2011 3:47 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
But the reason I responded to you is because I believe that you are criticizing something that isn't his argument. I read crash as arguing for a different default position than the existence of a historical Jesus based only on the Bible. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Then you seem to be missing most of what he has been writing. Why try to argue that the absence of the crucifixion records is significant - let alone try to argue that we HAVE a load of official crucifixion records from Pilate's rule of Judaea if he's just arguing for a different default ? And why don't we see him arguing more FOR a different default ?
quote:
I see you as attacking him for the positive claim that Jesus did not exist. That is something that no one can prove. I can't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist anymore than I can prove that a historical Heracles or Odysseus didn't exist. But it certainly does seem that many people tend to lean toward a historical Jesus and not toward the others. Why?
Crash certainly is arguing for that claim. And I'm not asking for proof - just reasonable arguments, instead of the rubbish that Crash is coming up with.
With regard to Herakles and Odysseus I would not rule out the possibility that either is based on a real person. Troy, after all, was real. But I don't think that anyone could deny that the stories we have about them are more mythologized and were composed further from the time they were set than the Gospels. If you want to compare them to Biblical characters then Moses might be better. (As a side note, the book of Jonah is likely a fictional story about a real historical character while Daniel is most likely a fictional character inserted into real - but badly distorted - history. The Bible has all sorts)
quote:
And there is an explanation being offered. The explanation is that the Jesus story was useful fiction.
Then Crash has the burden of proof in showing that that is the correct explanation.
quote:
Yea. I just mentioned some. Heracles and Odysseus.
And I would say that the mythological content and nature of the stories around them is a more important factor. Not the absence of official - or unofficial records.
quote:
Look, I don't think it is totally unreasonable to say that we have an extremely low confidence hypothesis that the character of Jesus in the bible had a historical counterpart. But I also don't think it is unreasonable to say that the confidence is low enough that we should essentially call it zero.
In the absence of a reasonable argument for that - and I have never seen one - I would have to disagree.
Then Crah has to argued FOR that. You certainly can't argue that that is the default.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Jazzns, posted 05-27-2011 3:47 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Jazzns, posted 05-27-2011 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 213 of 560 (617340)
05-27-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
05-27-2011 2:22 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
No, they're clearly not. You can't be "agnostic about the issue" and then use the assumed existence of Jesus to conclude, as you did, that
And I don't. Don't pick on the point that I happened to mention Jesus - deal with the point that Christianity seems to have been an obscure Jewish cult of little interest to many people, until well after Jesus is supposed to have lived.
quote:
Again, that's begging the question - it's whether or not there ever was a Christianity under Jesus that's precisely under contention! You can't assume the existence of Jesus and then use that as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Your contention here is perfectly circular.
I wasn't arguing that Jesus existed, so your objection is in error - again.
quote:
No, that's not my claim. How did you get it so wrong? I'm the one who's arguing that Jesus didn't exist, so why would I assume he did? Did you complete forget the two days of discussion we've just had on this issue?
And you get it wrong AGAIN. I stated that you were arguing that IF Jesus existed Christianity must have been very important in his lifetime, and therefore should have left records that would still survive and therefore the absence of such records is evidence that Jesus did not exist. Which is an argument that Jesus did not exist.
quote:
I've not asserted that any relic is genuine, because they're all fake. You agree they're all fake. Everybody knows they're fake.
How is the existence of fake relics evidence that we should have official records of Jesus, if he existed ? That was what you argued.
quote:
What on Earth are you on about? Every post it's like you forget what I've been trying to argue.
Apparently I am applying rational scrutiny to your arguments - and you are not. You should try it. You can do it,and your arguments would improve greatly if you did.
quote:
I just told you what the difference is - we know the census records existed, we don't know that any execution records of Jesus existed. How many times do I have to repeat that? Please let me know so I can just repeat it that many times in a post, and be done with it.
So you STiLL don't understand that unless a significant proportion of crucifixion records survived, then the absence of the record for Jesus is NOT evidence either way ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2011 2:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:40 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 214 of 560 (617342)
05-27-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
05-27-2011 2:26 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
I don't see how the Gospels present a prima facie case of anything. Could you elaborate?
The Gospels present a story, presented as true, of the origins of Christianity. Once we make allowances for bias, errors, exaggeration and legend - things found in more reliable histories from around the same time, we have a plausible story that fits in with the evidence we have. Without further analysis, provisionally accepting that the stories are largely based on actual events seems reasonable.
Now I don't see why the Gospels shouldn't be taken as prima facie evidence for the existence of Jesus. Why don"t you explain that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 05-27-2011 2:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:46 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 219 of 560 (617380)
05-28-2011 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jazzns
05-27-2011 5:01 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
I agree that the mythological content around those stories are more important. What I would like to know is what is different or beyond the mythological content of the Bible makes the historicity of Jesus more likely than that of Heracles or Odysseus?
One good reason isn't enough ? OK, the lack of a clear historical setting for Herakles and Odysseus - unlike Jesus - is another one. One that applies to Moses, too.
quote:
Is being the son of Yahweh and walking on water more credible to historicity than being the son of Jupiter and slaying a hydra?
I certainly have not, and would not suggest any such thing.
quote:
Certainly if he is claiming it to be true than the burden is on him. But how could he ever possibly prove the non-existence of something? I don't think crash is being that brazen. I believe the argument revolves around what should be considered the null hypothesis in this case.
Obviously if he had a full set of crucifixion records for Pilate's rule over Judaea - as Crashfrog has pretty much tried to claim - then the lack of any record identifiable as Jesus would be a pretty good start. Non-existence can be proven if there is evidence available.
And even if you were right it would only support my point. If Crashfrog cannot make good arguments that Jesus did not exist the arguments that he is using must be bad! Which IS the major point at issue.
But, more importantly I am NOT asking Crashfrog to directly argue against the existence of Jesus and you should know that. Crashfrog needs to provide a better explanation of the evidence that we do have and the burden of proof on him is to show that THAT EXPLANATION is more likely true than the obvious alternative of the Gospel stories being based on the life of a real person.
quote:
I don't see any reason why we can't argue that Jesus' non-existence is a legitimate default position. Why can't we argue that is the default? I have seen nothing presented thus far that would put weak historicity above that of non-existence as a perfectly valid default.
I don't know. Why can't you present a decent argument to that effect ? I haven't seen one. Nor have I seen a reasonable reply to my argument to the contrary.
quote:
I certainly seen a lot of passion over what is seemingly a trivial difference but I definitely reject the characterization of the arguments as "rubbish".
But you can't defend any of the arguments I have criticised. Sorry, but I am not going to pretend that the absence of an official record of Jesus's crucifixion is significant when to the nest of my knowledge all such records from that place and time are lost. It's obvious rubbish to say otherwise.
quote:
I very well could have missed where someone made the positive argument for the superiority of historicity as a default. Kindly explain to me exactly why a historical Jesus is a better null hypothesis to that of a fictional Jesus. To casually claim that one is an explanation while the other is not is simply not convincing.
We have evidence that must be explained. That explanation may or may not involve a historical Jesus. We choose the best explanation. As I have stated, the Gospels are prima facie evidence for a historical Jesus, so it is up to proponents of a mythical Jesus to present a better explanation. I have not seen one, and all this argument about defaults amounts to no more than an insistence that we should pretend that the evidence does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jazzns, posted 05-27-2011 5:01 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 11:18 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 226 of 560 (617625)
05-30-2011 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:40 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
I have dealt with it. The most reasonable explanation for that phenomenon is that Christianity is the result of people passing around stories about a mythical Jesus. That's why Christianity doesn't seem to exist at the time that Jesus is supposed to have started Christianity - it didn't get started by Jesus, because he didn't exist to start it.
That's the most parsimonious conclusion.
Of course it doesn't deal with the point since we still have the fact that Christianity does appear to have been around at the time (Paul attests that it existed prior to his conversion) and so the absence of records seems better attributed to unimportance rather than non-existence. So you haven't dealt with the point. Nor have you made a case that it is more parsimonious to assume Jesus did not exist. Christianity still needs to have come into existence somehow, and it is only be comparing explanations that parsimony can be evaluated - and, of course, parsimony is not the only criterion we need to consider.
quote:
So then there's no basis at all for your statement "Under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea, a backwater part of the Roman Empire." As you now agree there's actually no evidence at all that there was a Christianity under Jesus that was "little more than a minor Jewish cult".
That doesn't follow. What DOES follow is that your assertion that I was begging the question is fallacious. Begging the question requires sneaking in the conclusion as a premise.
quote:
Then you stated something that was in error, because I've not argued that. I've argued that there was no Jesus, so there was no Christianity in his lifetime, thus there was nothing to be "little more than a Jewish cult restricted to Judaea", and therefore that's just one more thing you're asserting on the basis of no evidence. Which is the underlying basis of the "historical Jesus" position - nothing at all.
I guess you don't understand hypotheticals then. Because you certainly failed to understand them here.
quote:
Because reals are better than fakes! (Ask anybody at a biker bar.) The real Jesus would have owned things, produced things - he was a carpenter - written things. Which people would have wanted to keep. Because they did want those things so badly that even though he never existed to produce anything, people made up relics to pass around and meet that need.
Just to note that you're employing exactly the sort of reasoning you attacked in your previous paragraph. You talk about what (you think) Jesus would have done if he had lived, and try to conclude that he did not. However, we have no clear evidence that Jesus produced anything that would have been suitable as a relic or wrote anything down. Most of the relics that did exist would likely have been concentrated in the Jerusalem group - and lost with them. With the periodic persecutions of Christians it is certainly possible that anything else was also lost - and how many relics do we have of Peter (if you accept his existence) or Paul ?
quote:
But we're concerned only with the execution of Jesus, not of anybody else. And unless you're proposing some kind of execution-specific purge of Roman records - again, not terribly parsimonious - then the lack of execution records in general has nothing to do with the lack of execution records of Jesus. It's completely irrelevant - it's just a coincidence. And it provides absolutely no explanation for the lack of Jesus's execution records.
Why would I need to propose an execution-specific purge when YOU insist that the records did exist, and no such records from the place and time in question actually survive ?
And if ALL such records are lost it obviously is not a coincidence that there is no such record for Jesus. How could it be ? If all the records are lost then necessarily there cannot be any such record surviving.
If we are genuinely interested in the question of Jesus' existence than we would want to know if the absence of an official crucifixion record is a mere absence of evidence (i.e. the records are lost or so incomplete that we cannot tell if originally there was a record of Jesus or not) or if it is significant (the records are complete enough that if Jesus existed we should expect to find a record). And it is clear that it is the former case. To argue against it is to go against all reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 7:49 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 227 of 560 (617626)
05-30-2011 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
05-29-2011 11:46 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
Ok, but Lord of the Rings presents a story, presented as true, of the doings of four Hobbits of the Shire. But you never answered my question about whether that's therefore a prima facie case for the existence of Hobbits.
If you ignore the many contextual facts that identify LotR as fiction you could do that. But why you would want to do that ? But that was only one part of my argument and LotR would still fail the rest.
quote:
Well, no. We have an utterly implausible story of a "historical Jesus Christ" who wasn't named Jesus Christ, didn't do miracles, may not have been a carpenter, never gave the Sermon on the Mount, didn't magnify the fishes and loaves, wasn't executed by the Romans, and didn't rise from his grave three days later.
The issue of names has already been dealt with, and shown to be ignorance on your part. Repeating it only makes it wilful ignorance.
Most historical Jesus proponents would assert that Jesus WAS executed by the Romans (something that the Gospel writers clearly were uncomfortable with, since they go out of their way to try to blame the Jews - so far as we can tell, falsely - and exonerate the Romans).
The rest is pretty much covered already. But I'll add that it was quite normal for ancient historians to invent speeches for the people they were writing about, so we can't say that failing to deliver the Sermon on the Mount as written is much of a blow against a historical Jesus either.
quote:
It's the utter implausibility of the "historical Jesus" starting Christianity that leads me to believe that there was no historic Jesus, no more than there was a historic John Frum or a historic James Bond or a historic Jesus Malverde. The very simple fact is that once you discard as much of the Gospel accounts as "historical Jesus" proponents have to in order to arrive at a plausibly-existing human individual, you've denuded the "historical Jesus" of anything that would actually result in him being the focus of a major world religion.
Obviously being a carpenter isn't required for that. Nor making specific speeches. Nor real miracles. And of the points you listed above, those are the only ones that (might) stand as valid. So it seems that you don't have much of a case there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2011 11:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 231 of 560 (617744)
05-31-2011 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
05-30-2011 7:49 PM


Re: Execution records
quote:
The Pauline conversion is well after the supposed life of Jesus, so that doesn't substantiate a Christianity during the time of Jesus, only a Christianity after the life of Jesus. Saw, within a decade or so. Which is completely consistent with the geographic spread of other cults based on fictional saviors and no communications technologies.
Pauls's conversion is apparently dated to within a few years of the supposed life of Jesus (the dates of 31-36 AD given by Wikipedia look on the early side to me but 33-36 seems viable, depending on the date assigned to Jesus' death). And don't forget that the Gospels assign a maximum of 3 years to Jesus' ministry.
quote:
Better how? Non-existence is always more parsimonious.
Because we have evidence of existence. What official records do we have for the existence of Christianity in the years that Paul was persecuting Christians ? Or in the years immediately following his conversion ?
quote:
The case is the definition of parsimony - "do not needlessly multiply entities." A historical Jesus is a needless entity, and therefore most rationally discarded, if the existence of a historical Jesus is not needed to explain the characteristics and spread of the early church.
Again that's just the definition of parsimony.
As I said, you have not made the case. You need to show that Jesus really is a "needless entity" (i.e. an unnecessary assumption) AND that you can explain the evidence without making MORE unnecessary assumptions. You have yet to make any serious attempt to do that.
quote:
Sure, but again - even in the "historical Jesus" position being defended, here, the beliefs of the early Church are based on an enormous amount of things that didn't actually happen. No Sermon on the Mount. No resurrection. No Last Supper, and so on. If nearly every aspect of the earliest Christian church was just legend, invention, fabrication - why couldn't it be based on an invented figure, as well? Why does the existence of Jesus have to be the one thing the early Christian church didn't make up? I've asked you several times and you don't seem to have an answer.
Well I DON'T hold it to be the "one thing" that Christianity didn't make up. Pilate existed. And Herod and his children. And John the Baptist. The Gospels aren't pure fiction like LotR. It's pretty unlikely that the Gospel writers made up the crucifixion since they have to make up stuff to try to absolve the Romans and blame the Jews.
quote:
Well, ok, so then what's the evidence that there's a "historical Jesus" under whom Christianity was a "minor Jewish cult" and not simply something that didn't exist at all? I asked you and you didn't have an answer.
The main reason I haven't been answering in THIS sub-thread is because THIS sub-thread is about the quality of your arguments.
quote:
But it is begging the question, as I've shown. You're using the lack of any evidence for a Christian church contemporary with Jesus Christ as evidence that "under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea." But that can only be true if Jesus existed and was the leader or central figure in a minor Jewish cult.
What you mean is that you can't produce any reason to suppose that there would be surviving records and therefore you are desperately trying to evade that real issue. Jesus' existence isn't the point.
quote:
What is the evidence for that view? I've asked you several times now, and you've replied with various things - the Pauline conversion, the lack of any evidence for a Christianity under Jesus - but none of them are actually evidence for that view.
In fact the circumstances of the Pauline conversion ARE evidence for such a view. We know that there was a Christian cult, too small to leave a trace in official records - yet large enough to attract the attention of an amateur zealot out to persecute them - within a few years of the supposed date of Jesus' death. And remember the real issue is YOUR claim that Christianity did NOT exist at that time (which is where you are going with the official records argument). You are going to have to show that a cult which left no official records couldn't have formed a few years earlier than is convenient for your argument. What evidence do YOU have ?
quote:
If I told you that there's a race of Martians with invisible space ships, and you asked me for evidence of that view, it would be utter nonsense of the first degree for me to reply that the fact that nobody's ever seen a Martian space ship is proof that they're invisible. That's begging the question because I've not established the existence of Martians or their space ships; I've simply presented an ad hoc explanation for the lack of any evidence for them.
That's clearly nonsense but it's exactly what you're doing with this "minor Jewish cult under Jesus" nonsense. Why should I believe that a Jesus existed who was the leader of a minor Jewish cult? What evidence exists for this position? Please be specific.
OK so you think that ordinary humans are equivalent to "invisible martians". I'm not asking you to accept anything implausible at all, so that comparison is obvious nonsense.
Secondly that argument is not about accepting the existence of Jesus at all. I've told you that often enough. But I suppose you have to cling desperately to your red herring because without it, what have you got ?
So all it comes down to is the question of whether we should expect there to be records or not. We've got reason to think that Christianity likely existed at that time. We have reason to think that if it did it would not be likely to leave official records. Therefore the lack of official records cannot be a valid argument against the existence of Christianity circa 30 AD.
quote:
Right, because that's how we test hypotheses - we examine their necessary consequences, and then inspect to see if those consequences are counterfactual.
But when I presented an argument that did exactly that, you claimed that it was wrong. If it's right, why object ?
quote:
And that's exactly what happens with every necessary consequence of the historical Jesus view that isn't also a consequence of the mythical Jesus view - we find that every consequence is necessarily something that doesn't seem to have happened.
Please support this assertion. So far it looks like you are concentrating on things which are NOT necessary consequences of the existence of a historical Jesus. For instance we should expect that we would NOT have an official record of the crucifixion of Jesus whether Jesus existed or not, because we don't have any such records from the right time and place.
quote:
Well, we have a bunch of Paul's letters, don't we? Copies, I mean. We have Paul's correspondence to the early Church passed down as part of the Bible. I assume the Pauline authorship is genuine - that's the consensus view, correct? - though I'm not aware of any of the evidence for that view so I can't defend it. But we don't have any of Jesus's correspondence? The early church saved Paul's stuff but not Jesus? Makes no sense.
Of course there is an obvious explanation that Jesus didn't write letters. As I mention above, according to the Gospels Jesus didn't last very long. Paul's letters are to distant churches which he was trying to keep in hand. It's very unlikely that Christianity had that organised a structure in the first few years of existence, no matter when you date it or who founded it. Even Paul's letters date well after his conversion. So you haven't given any reason to suppose that Jesus would have written any letters worth preserving for doctrinal use as Pauls' were.
quote:
Well, we do have Judean records, if not execution records. And you deny that there was any execution-specific purge of Roman records.
What proportion do we have ? And what is it with your supposed "purge of execution-specific records" anyway ? If we had a lot of other records but were only missing the records of executions that would be an obvious conclusion - but never something anybody would need to assume.
quote:
So perforce the loss of Jesus's execution records must be a coincidence, just as its a coincidence when you flip a fair coin five times and its heads each time. If you flip it a sixth time and it comes up heads again, that's a coincidence too unless you have some reason to believe the coin is heads-specific, which would mean it was an unfair coin.
You're not making a lot of sense here. Are you arguing FOR a purge of execution-specific records ? Are you arguing that there is a 50-50 chance of an execution record for Jesus surviving when none of the others did ? There's no need to invoke coincidence if all the execution records are lost as I have already pointed out.
quote:
So, again, unless there was some execution-specific purge of Roman records then the lack of Roman execution records in general is no explanation at all for the lack of Jesus execution records. It can't be, unless you have some reason to believe that there's some shared reason for the lack of execution records. But if there's no connection, the loss of records not related to Jesus can't explain the loss of records related to Jesus, just as five flips of a fair coin coming up heads doesn't have anything to do with whether it'll come up heads on the sixth.
You really are talking nonsense here Crash. If you think that a purge is needed to explain why ALL such records have been lost then YOU must propose a purge, because they HAVE been lost. If it isn't necessary then neither of us has to propose one. And it would be a MASSIVE coincidence if the execution record for Jesus was the ONLY one surviving. Enough of one that I would immediately suspect a forgery if any such document was produced.
quote:
What "contextual facts identify LotR as fiction"? The fact that it's sold as fiction?
That's nothing more than a reflection of the popular consensus that LotR is fiction, but that's nothing more than the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If I moved all the copies of the Bible in my local bookstore over to the fiction section, would that be a prima facie case against the existence of a historical Jesus, by virtue of "contextual facts"?
The fact that it is published as fiction is an obvious one (and not one you can change by simply reshelving books). All the books on the writing of LotR and the development of Tolkien's Middle Earth would constitute more evidence. Then there is the clearly fantastic setting which doesn't fit into known history at all. Really Crash, do you think of such things ?
quote:
What was shown is that everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wouldn't be called "Jesus Christ", because that's a combination of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name, plus a title. You've said that, Mod said that, a couple people have popped in here to tell me it again. Everybody agrees that the historic Jesus Christ wasn't called "Jesus Christ."
By which you mean that he was called "Jesus Christ" except in a narrow literalistic meaning of the phrase. But I am sorry for calling you ignorant since it is clear that you know that your argument is bogus.
quote:
Well, ok. Would a proponent of the historical Jesus care to present evidence for that view? Would you like to, PaulK?
Since you actually quoted some of it, perhaps you would like to answer that which has already been provided. Which IS a common argument that the crucifixion was a historical event.
quote:
Well, it's one more aspect of the Biblical Jesus that turns out to be mythical, and every part of the Jesus biography that turns out to be mythical lends probability to the correctness of the mythical Jesus position. If 99% of the supposed characteristics and biography of Jesus are myths, why isn't it reasonable to extend that to his existence, as well? It's a natural progression.
But it isn't true that 99% is mythical, nor is it valid to use ordinary characteristics of ancient history to argue that the subject of an ancient document did not exist. Remember you can't use things that we would expect to be true EVEN IF there were a historical Jesus as an argument against a historical Jesus,. Although you keep trying.
quote:
What are the minimal requirements that a person would have to exhibit to be considered the "historical Jesus"? If the answer is none, then how is Lou from New Jersey not Santa Claus?
There would be no specific set list, although founding Christianity would be very important (and hard to do without). But let's say that there was a preacher, named Yeshua, from Galilee who followed roughly the path described in the Gospels (minus genuine miracles and supernatural events), had parents named Mary and Joseph (or rather the Hebrew equivalents) founded Christianity and was executed by the Romans - why wouldn't we call him the historical Jesus ?
quote:
I have the same case I've always had: there's no evidence that supports the existence of a "historical Jesus." If I'm wrong about that, then by all means present the evidence.
In other words your case was founded on a false assumption from the start. The Gospels ARE evidence of a historical Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 05-30-2011 7:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 12:33 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 241 of 560 (617835)
05-31-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Jazzns
05-31-2011 11:18 AM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
I most certainly not saying that we should pretend that the evidence does not exist.
Then why should we be talking about defaults, when they only apply in the absence of evidence ?
quote:
Let me try this another way. Absent any evidence do you believe that the null hypothesis should be that there was no historical Jesus?
I don't believe that the idea of the null hypothesis applies to history in the way it does in the experimental sciences. Rather, we start with the evidence and look for the best explanation.
quote:
Do you then believe that the gospels are enough evidence to invalidate that hypothesis?
If so why? Where do our standards of evidence come from that says that prima facie evidence is enough to push us into a new paradigm?
Obviously the existence of evidence is enough to push us into the different paradigm of looking for explanations rather than simply relying on default assumptions. But a historical Jesus isn't a new paradigm at all. There's nothing special in that hypothesis. So depending on which you mean, the answer is either that it is obvious, or that there is no new paradigm involved at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 11:18 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 5:08 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 243 of 560 (617842)
05-31-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 11:57 AM


Re: Names and Roman Records
quote:
Well, no, none of this is accurate. Confucious was called Confucious, that just wasn't his name. Ghengis Khan was called Ghengis Khan. Charles IV was called Charles IV and when he became king that was his name. (Just like Prince William's name actually is "Prince William", and when he goes by "William Wales" or "William Mountbatten-Windsor to sound like a normal person, that's actually an alias.)
All of those people were called by those names either during their lives or in the period immediately following their deaths, so it's 100% inaccurate to say that they were not. But the proponents of the "historical Jesus" propose an individual who was not referred to as Jesus Christ until many centuries after his supposed existence.
You didn't check the facts, did you ? If you read the Wikipedia article on Confucius it will tell you that Confucius was born about 551 BC while the guy who first called him Confucius was a Jesuit who - if you follow the link for him - wasn't born until 1552 AD. That's 2000 years Crash.
Don't you see that you've fallen to the level of making shit up, all to try to cling to an argument that has already been refuted ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 11:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 2:36 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 560 (617869)
05-31-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 12:33 PM


Re: Execution records
I think that I will have to take this in pieces.
quote:
Does the existence of Great Britain prove that Casino Royale is a documentary? Surely not. Even Shakespeare knew to set his fiction in real places. I've been to Verona, Italy but that hardly lends historical veracity to Romeo and Juliet.
Pay attention to the arguments Crash. The fact that Christians got those things right proves that they didn't get everything wrong.
quote:
I don't see how this follows, you'll have to elaborate. I don't see how making up stuff to blame Jews somehow establishes the veracity of the Gospels in this regard. Isn't it just more likely that the Gospels are fiction that just happens to attack Jews? It wouldn't be the first time people have made things up to attack Jews.
It seems pretty simple to me. If they were making Jesus up and wanted to have the Jews kill him, then they can have the Jews kill him. No need to say that the Romans killed him, but really the Jews were to blame - no, really, honest guv! Obviously something constrained them to stick with a Roman execution. Which means that part of the story, at least, was fixed prior to the Gospels.
quote:
Well, but you are - you're asking me to accept the existence of a historical Jesus, which I've demonstrated is implausible to say the least.
You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort.
quote:
It's not right.
Well make your mind up ! Are you really going to dismiss a perfectly valid form of argument that you yourself have used just to avoid admitting a mistake or not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 12:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 3:05 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 272 of 560 (617974)
05-31-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Jazzns
05-31-2011 5:08 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
quote:
Because I am asking what amount and/or quality of evidence do we demand before we abandon the null hypothesis.
Well you haven't formulated a proper null hypothesis. Or explained why we should be using methods appropriate to experimental science for historical investigation which has limited evidence, often no way of making testable predictions and not solid statistical measures.
What's wrong with using inference to the best explanation in that case ?
quote:
Why not? Lets not get caught up in the terminology. Using a "null hypothesis" and applying evidence to it is how we rationally investigate every other aspect of the world. Why should we apply a different standard to history? Other historical sciences do not have this problem.
Really ? I don't think so. We certainly don't do statistical tests on most things. So really I am not sure what you mean - especially as you haven't even stated what your null hypothesis is. And I have to admit that I am puzzled by the idea that history would be considered a science.
Consider this:
We can never be sure what happened at a battle such as Salamis, when the sources n which any interpretation must depend manage to be simultaneously contradictory and full of holes: one might as well look to complete a half-broken Rubik's Cube. No matter how often the facts are studied, twisted and rearranged it is impossible to square them all; a definitive solution cannot be found.
-- Tom Holland Preface to Persian Fire
Where is the room for "null hypotheses" here ?
It seems to me that the defaults relate more to parsimony and background assessment of likelihood. If I insist that there was a Jew named Yeshua alive in 30 AD, you would be a fool not to believe me. It was a common name for a Jew at that time.
So the question isn't about how much evidence it takes. The question is whether we assume that the Gospels contain some core of truth about the founding of Christianity or whether we dismiss them as total fiction. And it seems to me that if we can extract a plausible core from the Gospels - which are certainly poor sources, but in ways that we would expect them to be poor - we should tend to believe it. Why not ? Wouldn't it be more surprising for the origin of Christianity to be totally obscured by a fiction than for the account to be elaborated and exaggerated and acquire legendary encrustations (which it certainly would do if it were based in reality) ?
quote:
No it is not obvious at all. Keeping with an analogy to an experimental procedure, if there is a strong prior on the null hypothesis, it would take significantly more evidence to abandon the null hypothesis than it would with no prior.
Well, what is this null hypothesis if it has a strong prior ? A simple default assumption of non-existence cannot be it, unless we already have good grounds to consider the entity in question implausible. Which we do not, in this case.
quote:
If any tini tidbit of evidence should dramatically sway our conclusion, then we would have no basis in which to ground those conclusions. Are you familiar with Bayesian reasoning?
I've come across it, and I think it's pretty good as a basis for inductive reasoning, but pretty dubious when we cannot provide decent probability measures. (Such as attempts to "prove" the resurrection by Bayesian reasoning).
quote:
My point is that if we were starting from scratch, we would require a certain amount of evidence before we hold any particular conclusion other than non-existence. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that prima facie evidence is insufficient for abandoning the null hypothesis.
If the "null hypothesis" is founded on nothing more than parsimony, then it is weak and can easily be upset. So I really have to ask what your null hypothesis is and how it is strong enough to survive even weak evidence.
quote:
My question remains, why is it so abundantly clear to you that it should? Other than telling me that it is "obvious" I don't think you have addressed my concerns at all.
Maybe if you could state your concerns more clearly - for instance explaining what your null hypothesis is and explaining why you feel that it is strong, you can explain why you feel that it overrules inference to the best explanation, as you clearly feel that it does. So far I have seen nothing to justify such a position at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 5:08 PM Jazzns has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 274 of 560 (617985)
05-31-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 12:33 PM


Re: Execution records
The continuation...
quote:
Not at all. You are, by implication.
If there was no execution-specific or Judea-specific purge of Roman records, then all the records were lost coincidentally. And if it's all just a coincidence that all the records are gone, then there's no reason that the lack of execution records or records from Judea should imply that there may have been a Jesus execution record that also was lost - just as five heads in a row on a coin specified as "fair" doesn't imply anything about the result of a sixth toss, making a sixth heads result a complete coincidence.
Let us be clear. You say that the records existed. You agree that one exist now. You say that without a specific purge some should still exist. Those premises logically entail a purge.
I take a different view. We would expect the records to be stored in one place, and thus they would be subject to all being lost in a single disaster. Or by an indiscriminate attack aimed at other records in the same place. Or old records might be regularly destroyed, without singling out execution records. None of these involves any real coincidence.
quote:
No. I'm arguing that the odds of the loss of a Jesus-specific execution record are unrelated to the number of documents that survive in total, once you've stipulated that there was no purposeful purge of execution-related or Judea-related (or any other characteristic-related) documents.
Since there is no reasonable way to estimate that probability WITHOUT taking into account the proportion of surviving documents your claim is clearly wrong (a frequentist would argue that counting the proportion of surviving records is the ONLY way to determine that probability). And when we do take that into account the probability of the record being lost is very, very close to 1. Therefore the absence of the record is insignificant since it is expected to a very high degree whether Jesus existed or not.
quote:
By definition that's true, PaulK. The only way that the lack of documents in general would lend support to the lack of documents specific to Jesus is if the two are somehow related - by a specific purge. But you keep insisting that there was no purge. You keep insisting that it's a coincidence.
If crucifixion records are likely to survive then it would be a massive coincidence to have lost them all. If they are so very unlikely to survive that we should expect to have none then certainly we cannot claim that any specific record should have survived.
The only relationship needed is that the record of Jesus' execution (if there was one) would be one of the crucifixion records of that time, kept with the rest, not singled out for special treatment. And if you wish to deny that, then is is you that needs to provide the evidence.
quote:
But again, the fact that it is published as fiction is nothing but a reflection of the popular consensus - the argumentum ad populum - that the work is fiction. Similarly that a book is published as non-fiction reflects nothing but the popular consensus that the work is non-fiction.
Of course, you are wrong here. The decision to publish as fiction or non-fiction is made by the publisher, before enough of the public are aware of the book to form a consensus view.
quote:
So the classification of a book is not in any way a reliable guide to the truth or falsity of the claims made therein. Thus the fact that the Gospels claim that there was a real Jesus who existed is not a prima facie case for anything; it's only evidence that the claims have been made, not evidence that they are true.
Yet another irrational argument. You seem to confuse a prima facie case with "conclusive evidence". Would you not agree that most fiction books are really fiction and most non-fiction books are not ? And that is before we get into the other evidence...
And so your argument fails, not even fully dealing with my case for considering LotR fiction.
quote:
By which I mean, only, that when the individual under discussion was greeted in the street, nobody uttered the words "Jesus Christ, it's Jesus Christ!" when doing so.
In other words you mean it in a way that is utterly useless for your case.
quote:
Clearly I've not quoted any of it because none has been presented.
Unfortunately for you, Crash you DID quote it. Here it is again:
(something that the Gospel writers clearly were uncomfortable with, since they go out of their way to try to blame the Jews - so far as we can tell, falsely - and exonerate the Romans).
Why would the Gospel writers need to make up excuses to exonerate the Romans when - if they were just making things up - they don't need to have the Romans execute Jesus anyway ? It doesn't make sense. Of course, if Jesus really was executed by the Romans it's very unlikely that the Gospel writers would have the opportunity to deny that. It would be established too early for them to tamper with it more than they did.
quote:
Of course it's valid to point out that you're engaged in an argument from ignorance, arguing that because a lack of evidence doesn't eliminate the possibility of a historical Jesus, it lends support to the possibility of a historical Jesus.
Of course it would be false to do so. My criticisms of your arguments AGAINST the existence of Jesus are not and never were intended to be a case that Jesus did exist. And I do not make them out to be anything more than a weakness in your case.
quote:
Already refuted.
Where ? I certainly haven't seen it. Bu then i haven't seen you demonstrate a lot of things you claim to have demonstrated. It's like arguing with Buzsaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 12:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024