Diogenes the Cynic

What is the null hypothesis for Jesus mythicism? Does it offer any falsifiable predictions? If so, what? If not, then how can it be evaluated empirically?

GakuseiDon

I think you would need to define which mythicist theory first. There are a number of them, some not mutually exclusive. For example, for the Doherty mythicists, the Acharya S mythicist theory is not the 'true' theory. Nor is the Mountainman theory of Christian origins.

hjalti

Here's a prediction: The shroud of Turin is a forgery! :Cheeky:

Gorit Maqueda

A letter from James, the brother of Jesus, to Paul, thanking him for the good time they spent together with Cephas, and giving him some earthly details about his brother. The original manuscript, of course. Big enough to carbon date it.

maryhelena

:hysterical:

Vorkosigan

If you adopt Doherty's definition, then it is obviously falsifiable in the narrow Popperian terms you propose. A discovery of a manuscript of Josephus with an intact TF datable from the second century would do grave damage to it. So would a gospel that contained a dry historical account rather than accounts invented out of the Old Testament. So would the discovery of a previously unknown account from a historian or similar with narrated the historical kernel that Historicists have invented. But frankly I have little fear of any such thing happening.

But I don't think your approach is correct. Do historical claims have a null hypothesis in that kind of naive Popperian sense that you appear to mean? Don't think so. Interpretive frameworks don't have null hypotheses. They are viewed in terms of their ability to persuade others that they provide a more robust explanation of historical data than other frameworks and can only be similarly refuted. What is the Null Hypothesis for "the South lost the Civil War due to the low quality of its military leadership in the west". What is the Null Hypothesis for "China failed to develop western-style science because did not have Christianity?" There aren't any. The only way to approach the question would be to gather up the data and see what kind of interpretive framework explained the data in a way that satisfied reasonable minds. But then we get into the messy process of social agreement over just what the framework and its interpretation are, as well as what it explains and whether it explains it well. That is what we are doing in the HJ/MJ debate.

Vorkosigan

PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Good points.

One thing that might disprove the HJ hypothesis is if there were multiple gospels written around the same time with major differences in what Jesus said and did, and characterizing him differently as a God, semi-god and man.

Fortunately, as Paul says, there is only one Gospel.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Tom Sawyer

It would be good if they found a letter like this:

Juststeve

Jay:

We have just what you say. If we were to compare the writings of Paul with those of Matthew for example we would get an entirely different view of the role of the Law in salvation. In Matthew Jesus repeatedly says that salvation comes from following the law and never says that salvation comes from a belief in himself. Paul says exactly the opposite. Is that the sort of thing your talking about.

Among the synoptics on one hand and John on the other there are irreconcilable inconsistencies with regard to important facts. When was Jesus crucified for example, before or after the passover meal? Even among the synoptics we have such inconsistencies. Take for example the accounts of Matthew and Luke of how Jesus happened to be born in Bethlehem. Can you reconcile those two accounts.

Since Paul said there was only one gospel before the other gospels were written, what do you take that to mean?

Steve

Diogenes the Cynic

How are you defining HJ, and why would this falsify it?