J-D

Whether your argument about that particular text is correct or not, it doesn't establish any general principle about forged documents.

Evidence can only be evaluated in relation to a specific conclusion or hypothesis: as tending to support it, or as tending to do the reverse, or as having no weight relevant to it. Whether a forged document (supposing that the document under discussion is known to be forged) has weight in one direction or the other or neither depends on the circumstances of the specific case. There's no valid general principle about the absolute evidentiary value of a forged document independent of the relevant conclusion or hypothesis in relation to which it is being evaluated.In a typical case, no: I would say that typically a genuine birth certificate (if it is known to be genuine) counts as evidence--typically, I would say, extremely strong evidence--in favour of the conclusion that a person matching the description on the birth certificate existed (or exists). To some extent, it depends on what is meant, in this context, by 'genuine'. For some definitions of the meaning of 'genuine' in this context, the result is a tautologous one: one might say that by definition if nobody matching the description on the birth certificate existed the certificate is not 'genuine' and that part of the meaning of saying that it is 'genuine' is that a person matching the description on it existed (or exists).

But there's no automatic step from there to any general statement about the evidentiary value (or lack of it) of forged birth certificates.

mountainman

The equivalence can be generalized by considering the statement "Author X does not mention Y" and "The Y references in X were forged". The first statement is a typical statement of negative evidence. This demonstrates that forged documents tendered in respect of a claim, are at least superficially similar in principle to negative evidence against that claim.

This is false, since there is certainly an automatic step from there to the general statement about the lack of evidentiary value of a forged document including a birth certificate. It the document is known to be forged then it cannot have any positive evidentiary value with respect to its innate claims. The options to be argued/discussed are that it has either zero value or negative value - it cannot have positive value.

The example of the TF and the generalisation above indicate that there is an argument to be made for the case that forgeries are a form of negative evidence.

J-D

No, it doesn't. The generalisation is not valid.No, there isn't.No, that is not necessarily true.No, they don't.

mountainman

Did Josephus mention Jesus?

J-D

Whether he did or not has no bearing on any general principle for the evaluation of evidence.

mountainman

Let's return to the specific example of Josephus setting aside for the moment any general principle. The argument is that it is quite common to find in the literature about the "TF" a statement to the effect that "Josephus does not mention Jesus". Do you agree that this is the case? The argument is that further this is a statement of negative evidence, like the dog which did not bark in the night. Do you agree that this is the case?

J-D

I don't know whether it is common to find that statement in the literature.It is not clear to me in what way you are suggesting that it is similar to the dog which did not bark in the night.

mountainman

Here is a google index of matches for "Josephus does not mention Jesus" - About 6,650 results (0.25 seconds)


In both cases the evidence is described and represented by an event which did not happen. We have seen that such evidence is referred to as negative evidence.

Toto

The mysteries of google. Most of those hits must be on message boards or youtube comments repeating the same quote. If you get to page 3 of your search you find:

When I run that search in US google while logged in, I max out at 49 hits, and only a few are actually your quote.

Samples:

Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient ... - Google Books Result
...
John is given some extensive treatment in Ant. 18.5.2 §1 16-19,24 but Josephus does not mention Jesus here

James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of ... - Google Books Result

That Josephus does not mention Jesus again, except when speaking about James,

Jesus and the Jews: The Pharisaic Tradition in John ...
www.jstor.org/stable/1051460
In all his writings,. Josephus does not mention Jesus or his followers except in the disputed passage in Antiquities

A Jewish Jesus, a Palm Sunday sermon by Rev. Ann C. Fox ...
www.uufairhaven.org/2009/Ser2009apr05.htm
Apr 5, 2009 – Vermes [Ver-mesh] believes that the Baptist was much more famous than Jesus and this is why Josephus does not mention Jesus much.

Systematic theology: a compendium and commonplace-book designed ... - Google Books Result
Augustus Hopkins Strong - 1886 - Baptists - 758 pages
Even though we should grant that Josephus does not mention Jesus, we should have a parallel in Thucydides, who never once mentions Socrates,

Re: Jesus in the Talmud
alt.mailarchive.ca/bible/2008-07/0023.html
90+ items – >Apart from those passages, Josephus does not mention Jesus. ...

J-D

And we have also seen that the expression 'negative evidence' is used in more than one way.