Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

You should agree at least that the concept of the fall of the Roman empire is a complex thing, while the concept of the historical existence of person X is not, and is about as simple as you can get --- which is my entire point.

Which Jesus?

The following scholars have written books about the Jesus who is the subject of the hypothesis in the field of ancient history concerning the origins of Christianity:

We have discussed Richard Carrier, Herman Detering, Earl Doherty and Hoffman of the Jesus Project. To this we could add hundreds of books, such as The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

My use of the term Jesus in the pair of antithetical hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history" follows the Jesus conventions used by the contemporary (and past) academics in a specific field.

In this sense and this sense alone - within the field of the history of Christian origins - the term Jesus is essentially agreed upon by all people as the identity who is described in the new testament literature and its earliest history. If we have to get formal about it, then we are talking about the identity Jesus who is put forward as the author of a letter, asserted to have been preserved in the archives and addressed to the King of Edessa.

fundamental nature of these positive and negative historicity hypotheses

Therefore I see these hypotheses as essentially fundamental with respect to this field. They cannot be broken down any further. An identity (an author) either existed in history or he/she did not. It's about as simple as is required for the investigation of christian origins (and its academic scholarship).

The New Testament literature makes a number of separate and independent assertions about a character referred to as 'Jesus', and in this sense the description of 'Jesus' is composite, not atomic, and amenable to analytical breakdown.

Yes and no.

N/A

I see the situation as if we are dealing with a relational database and that although there are indeed multiple references to Jesus within the canonical and noncanonical new testament literature - on a ms by ms basis - each of these references is intended to be pointing at one Jesus who is purported to be an historical figure. There are many references to Caesar, but only one Caesar. The more references in general from around the ballpark that support the asserted positive historicity of any specific historical figure, the better and more positive that figure usually becomes.

Separately the positive and negative historicity hypothesis appied to each of these sources about Jesus. But it is just as valid to apply the historicity hypothesis to the purported historical figure alluded to in the various texts, and this is what I am doing in asking the question "Did Jesus exist".

Quote:

Even in your own response, you have given two different definitions of 'Jesus', one in terms of the New Testament literature and the other in terms of a letter alleged to have been written to the King of Edessa. These are not interchangeable. It makes a difference which one is being used.

They both relate to the person Jesus, the historical existence of whom is being questioned. (See the schematic)

Quote:

Similarly, different past writers on the subject have given different descriptions of Jesus. By giving different meanings to the term they are in effect developing a range of different hypotheses which do not reduce simply to a binary choice between two options of which one is a direct negation of the other.

But I am not going into all the hypotheses about his description or what words may have been genuine, but rather I am dwelling on the very general and fundamental concept of historicity. In this context, the positive and negative historicity are fundamental, and in one sense take priority.

To take your example of 'Caesar': there were in fact many historical individuals referred to by the name 'Caesar'. It cannot simply be assumed that all references to 'Caesar' refer to the same individual: in fact, this is demonstrably false.

Yes the Caesar example needs the "Julius Caesar" specified, I will grant you that. However the Jesus example stands as sufficiently specified in respect of the field.

Doug Shaver · 12-22-2011, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you appear to be qualifying the hypothesis "Paul existed" with the additional claim that this hypothesis is more likely than the antithetical hypothesis that "Paul did not exist".

That is not a qualification. It is an entailment. If I believe any X, then if I am not to contradict myself, I must also believe that X is more likely than not-X.

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you appear to be qualifying the hypothesis "Paul existed" with the additional claim that this hypothesis is more likely than the antithetical hypothesis that "Paul did not exist".

That is not a qualification. It is an entailment.

Entailment

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

In logic, entailment is a relation between a set of sentences (e.g.,[1] meaningfully declarative sentences or truthbearers) and a sentence.

This seems to indicate that the meaningfully declarative sentence or truthbearer is "Paul existed", which has been my point here.

You understand I hope that I am not here arguing such a HISTORICTY hypothesis is right or wrong, only that this positive historicity hypothesis (or indeed its antithesis) is conceptually fundamental to each named person to be addressed in the theory of christian origins (e.g. Paul and Jesus) and is fundamental to each and every item of evidence.

Quote:

If I believe any X, then if I am not to contradict myself, I must also believe that X is more likely than not-X.

Underlying the arguments I have presented here is the consistent context of at least one pair of antithetical hypotheses (i.e. X and not-X), such that the X which is selected automatically implies that the not-X is not selected, or vice verse. The context of my argument explicitly includes X and not-X as mutually exclusive.

J-D · 12-22-2011, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You should try abandoning your resistance to a parallel approach.

Well I would do so if it can be shown that the concept of 'the historical existence of Jesus" (or in general the historical existence of En, where En is an element of the evidence) can be reduced to smaller components within the context of the academic literature on this specific concept.

I see the concept in pragmatic terms as atomic and not reducible within the field of ancient history (in question here, although it is certainly reducible in other fields such as philosophy).

Unless what the term 'Jesus' means in ancient history is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus', then it is not an atomic concept and is reducible, whether anybody has previously made the attempt or not.

But perhaps the only concept of 'Jesus' you are interested in is 'any person who happened to be named Jesus'?

You should agree at least that the concept of the fall of the Roman empire is a complex thing, while the concept of the historical existence of person X is not, and is about as simple as you can get --- which is my entire point.

Which Jesus?

The following scholars have written books about the Jesus who is the subject of the hypothesis in the field of ancient history concerning the origins of Christianity:

We have discussed Richard Carrier, Herman Detering, Earl Doherty and Hoffman of the Jesus Project. To this we could add hundreds of books, such as The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe.

My use of the term Jesus in the pair of antithetical hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history" follows the Jesus conventions used by the contemporary (and past) academics in a specific field.

In this sense and this sense alone - within the field of the history of Christian origins - the term Jesus is essentially agreed upon by all people as the identity who is described in the new testament literature and its earliest history. If we have to get formal about it, then we are talking about the identity Jesus who is put forward as the author of a letter, asserted to have been preserved in the archives and addressed to the King of Edessa.

fundamental nature of these positive and negative historicity hypotheses

Therefore I see these hypotheses as essentially fundamental with respect to this field. They cannot be broken down any further. An identity (an author) either existed in history or he/she did not. It's about as simple as is required for the investigation of christian origins (and its academic scholarship).

The New Testament literature makes a number of separate and independent assertions about a character referred to as 'Jesus', and in this sense the description of 'Jesus' is composite, not atomic, and amenable to analytical breakdown.

Yes and no.

N/A

I see the situation as if we are dealing with a relational database and that although there are indeed multiple references to Jesus within the canonical and noncanonical new testament literature - on a ms by ms basis - each of these references is intended to be pointing at one Jesus who is purported to be an historical figure. There are many references to Caesar, but only one Caesar. The more references in general from around the ballpark that support the asserted positive historicity of any specific historical figure, the better and more positive that figure usually becomes.

Separately the positive and negative historicity hypothesis appied to each of these sources about Jesus. But it is just as valid to apply the historicity hypothesis to the purported historical figure alluded to in the various texts, and this is what I am doing in asking the question "Did Jesus exist".

Quote:

Even in your own response, you have given two different definitions of 'Jesus', one in terms of the New Testament literature and the other in terms of a letter alleged to have been written to the King of Edessa. These are not interchangeable. It makes a difference which one is being used.

They both relate to the person Jesus, the historical existence of whom is being questioned. (See the schematic)

Quote:

Similarly, different past writers on the subject have given different descriptions of Jesus. By giving different meanings to the term they are in effect developing a range of different hypotheses which do not reduce simply to a binary choice between two options of which one is a direct negation of the other.

But I am not going into all the hypotheses about his description or what words may have been genuine, but rather I am dwelling on the very general and fundamental concept of historicity. In this context, the positive and negative historicity are fundamental, and in one sense take priority.

To take your example of 'Caesar': there were in fact many historical individuals referred to by the name 'Caesar'. It cannot simply be assumed that all references to 'Caesar' refer to the same individual: in fact, this is demonstrably false.

Yes the Caesar example needs the "Julius Caesar" specified, I will grant you that. However the Jesus example stands as sufficiently specified in respect of the field.

No, 'Julius Caesar' is not a sufficient specification: there was more than one historical individual referred to by the name 'Julius Caesar', and not all references to 'Julius Caesar' refer to the same individual. And 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

If it is a sufficient specification for Herman Deterning, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, R Hoffman (of the - wait for it - 'Jesus' Project') and Arthur Drews to name a handful of academic scholars in this specific field, then it is a sufficient specification for my purposes here.

J-D · 12-22-2011, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

If it is a sufficient specification for Herman Deterning, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, R Hoffman (of the - wait for it - 'Jesus' Project') and Arthur Drews to name a handful of academic scholars in this specific field, then it is a sufficient specification for my purposes here.

Even if they think it's a sufficient specification (and I don't definitely know that to be the case), that doesn't mean that they're right.

And whether it's a sufficient specification for your purposes here depends on what your purposes here are, a point which you have left obscure.

Toto · 12-22-2011, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

If it is a sufficient specification for Herman Deterning, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, R Hoffman (of the - wait for it - 'Jesus' Project') and Arthur Drews to name a handful of academic scholars in this specific field, then it is a sufficient specification for my purposes here.

I don't think you can demonstrate that this is a "speculation" for most of these scholars.

Earl Doherty is careful to frame the question as one of "Christian origins," not the existence of someone who might have been named Jesus. Hoffman ultimately rejects the question. I don't think that Deterning talks about whether Jesus existed; he writes that Paul's letters are fabrications, but he does identify a historical person that he thinks was the "historical Paul" - although so removed it's not clear what that means.

If all you are going to say is that an undefined Jesus existed or not, you are not saying anything worth discussing.

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

If it is a sufficient specification for Herman Deterning, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, R Hoffman (of the - wait for it - 'Jesus' Project') and Arthur Drews to name a handful of academic scholars in this specific field, then it is a sufficient specification for my purposes here.

I don't think you can demonstrate that this is a "speculation" for most of these scholars.

We have already agreed that history is hypothetical and as such requires hypotheses and speculations to be formulated and tested. We are discussing the positive hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and its negative antithesis "Jesus did not exist in history". We have already seen specific statements cited in repect of the above scholars on either the hypothesis "Jesus existed in history" or "Jesus did not exist in history" or "Paul existed in history" or "Paul did not exist in history".

The hypothetical nature of Jesus remains even if we accept for one moment that entire class of apologetics (both modern and ancient) to whom (they have claimed) this same Jesus speaks directly. (Some consider Paul in this class)

As such I consider it demonstrated that all scholars either explicitly or (largely) implicitly take one of these posiive or negative historicity hypothesis as provisionally true (re: Jesus and/or Paul) for their exposition. There is no doubt that there are a great range of conclusions that are generated by provisionally assuming true either the positive or negative historicity hypothesis about Jesus, and this can be demonstrated in the following table:

Source: Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions

Note in the first place the positive and negative [historicity] column and its ability to calibrate the entire spread of opion:

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[-1 to -20 %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[-10 to -50 %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[-50 to-100 %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[-50 to-100 %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

With thanks to spin for starting this table.

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 08:11 PM

From a position of POSITIVE HISTORICITY, somewhere up at the top of the above table, and from another thread, here is another example description of this same Jesus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Jesus of Nazareth fully intended to be a leader of a movement, and he knew what he was doing.

If Jesus existed (and he did), then we would not say that he was fabricated, according to the way we normally think about ancient historical figures, like Buddha, Muhammad, Pythagoras or Alexander the Great. We have no first-hand attestation about them, but we do have a set of extraordinary myths about them. They, like Jesus, are portrayed as a miraculous human being (not a god) by the earliest evidence. The historical Jesus roughly fits the biographical profile of Jesus in the earliest evidence (Paul, Mark and Q). He grew up in Nazareth, his parents were Mary and Joseph, he had four brothers including James and Jude, he was baptized by John the Baptist, he had twelve disciples, he traveled in rural Galilee as a religious orator, he praised the poor and denigrated the rich, he predicted that the world as he knew it was going to immediately end in calamity, he went to Jerusalem during Passover, and he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. That is a perfectly plausible historical figure for that time and place, and it is inferred from our earliest evidence using standard methods of inference.

So, there are not two Jesuses any more than there are two Pythagoruses or two Alexanders the Great.

Toto · 12-22-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.

... I consider it demonstrated that all scholars either explicitly or (largely) implicitly take one of these positive or negative historicity hypothesis as provisionally true (re: Jesus and/or Paul) for their exposition. ...

No such thing has been demonstrated. Some scholars make the assumption that Jesus existed and go on from there; others do not make that assumption and examine whether someone like Jesus existed at the origins of Christianity.

Examining the evidence for the existence of someone like Jesus is very different from taking the hypothesis that he existed as provisionally true or false.

For example, Apostate Abe does not take the existence of Jesus as provisionally true. He thinks that he has evaluated the evidence to reach the conclusion that a Jesus who shared some characteristics with the gospel Jesus existed and sparked the Christian religion. If you try to tell him that he has assumed the existence of a historical Jesus, he will deny that - except that he has you on ignore and will never see what you write.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.