|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: We may get to that later, although I have presented arguments here in the past.
quote: 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:Relying on irrational arguments hardly makes it reasonable. quote: But this is just a "could be" - it requires evidence to back it up. So far you're coming up rather short on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: Then Crash has the burden of proof in showing that that is the correct explanation.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: I wasn't arguing that Jesus existed, so your objection is in error - again.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: I certainly have not, and would not suggest any such thing.
quote: 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 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: I guess you don't understand hypotheticals then. Because you certainly failed to understand them here.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: But when I presented an argument that did exactly that, you claimed that it was wrong. If it's right, why object ?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: In other words your case was founded on a false assumption from the start. The Gospels ARE evidence of a historical Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then why should we be talking about defaults, when they only apply in the absence of evidence ?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that I will have to take this in pieces.
quote: Pay attention to the arguments Crash. The fact that Christians got those things right proves that they didn't get everything wrong.
quote: 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: You haven't demonstrated anything of the sort.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
The continuation...
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: In other words you mean it in a way that is utterly useless for your case.
quote: 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 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024