ChandraRama

Perfectly.

Historical but probable - Julius Ceasar. Certainly some king would have ruled Rome. It could be Julius Ceasar if such a name is referred by one historical author.

Historical but improbable - Alexander. Certainly some king would have ruled Greece. But to prove he indeed conquered areas from India to Africa needs proof from all the places he supposed to have gone.

Historical but highly improbable - Jesus. Certainly so many jesuses have appeared in the first century Judea. But to prove that one such jesus indeed made miracles, raised dead people alive and he himself died and rose again and he indeed is the only son of the one and only THE God need extradinary proof.

The whole exercise to find if there are any proofs of that sort.

Peter Kirby

The interesting thing is that, for the most part, historians do not reflect much on whether their figures of interest existed. The few exceptions are figures of religious stature such as Siddhartha, Confucius, and the anomalous William Tell (of cultural stature in that case, perhaps). So you will not find a book on Alexander the Great laid out like the Summa Theologica, with the proposition Whether Alexander Existed. Rather they are more concerned with what he did and what was said of him and by him, that by entering into such study they may through their research better know who he was.

(The main difference in HJ studies--if I may be permitted to compare and contrast--is not the presumption of historicity, but rather the presumption that historical investigation will reveal "Who He is," instead of simply who he was, which would be a matter of lesser urgency. Schweizer wisely left the question of "Who He is" to the existential encounter, not the historical enterprise. In this kind of light, ahistoricists typically attempt to circumscribe such a knowledge of "Who He is" with a bludgeoning of "who he was," that is, that he was not, similar to the attempts of historically-oriented apologetes to bolster faith with their research.)

regards,
Peter Kirby

Roger Pearse

This illustrates neatly the problem with subjectivism, if we don't have some kind of rule to stop us saying "well, I just don't find this inconvenient piece of data probable...". The first biases that I have to exclude is my own, conscious and unconscious, societal and personal.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Eowyn

It doesn't make sense to me to compare other historical figures to a possible historical Jesus. What reason would someone have to invent a Socrates? What reason would someone have to invent an Aristotle?

Jesus was allegedly a man who was God in human form, who died to save us from sin, who was resurrected, who talked about heaven and hell.

If I read an account of a high school English teacher in 1930's who made her students read boring books, I would have no reason to think it was made up. On the other hand, if I read an account of a high school English teacher who was really God in human form, and who was hanged and raised up by God to save us from our sins I would not believe it without far more convincing evidence.

GakuseiDon

There is the new website, "Rational Response Squad", who have offerred $500 for evidence for a historical Jesus. From here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...597&indicate=1

Christians not only have to find a contemporary that wrote about Jesus, but also "somebody that lived during the time of Jesus, and did not have a bias towards him." Note that the website has been set up to "expose irrational claims".

Toto

That looks like a stunt for a movie. $500 isn't enough to make a point.

But "contemporary unbiased accounts" appears to be the sort of evidence that historians like to find. What's you complaint with that?

Notice that the group is NOT trying to claim that if no one meets their challenge this PROVES that JESUS DIDN"T EXIST

jjramsey

Sure, they like to find it, but have they ever done so? Contemporary stuff, like Caesar's own writings, they can sometimes find, but I doubt that any historian would ever seriously entertain that their sources were unbiased, unless they were something really dry like bureaucratic records.

GakuseiDon

They want evidence for a Jesus who could perform miracles, raise the dead and heal people, by having an account from a contemporary who wasn't biased.

True, but their position is that no-one wrote about Jesus while he was alive, therefore he wasn't a historical person. As one of the RRS says in the link above: "I don't presume Jesus' existence as a historical figure because nobody EVER wrote about him while he was alive. In fact there is a gap of at least 30 years at the bare minimum, a FULL LIFETIME, before someone wrote about him.

Toto

Many historical persons are mentioned in accounts that are biased against that person. Alexander the Great was known as Alexander the Pest to the Persians. That's the sort of evidence that allows the historian to feel more secure in his or her judgment.

But that thread on myspace is a hoot. Metacrock has come out of retirement and is doing nothing for the good name of Christianity:

Wash his keyboard out with soap

Toto

I think they have framed it as there is no solid historical evidence of Jesus since no one wrote about him when he was alive. They are not presuming to prove the negative.