JoeWallack

JW:
Okay "Z". Now we have, in order of Quality, just based off the top of my head and without considering any criteria, the following potential evidence for HJ:

1) Q

2) Paul

3) "Mark"

4) Non-Christian references

5) Early Patristic references

6) Commercial success of Christianity

7) Assumption by Authority

8) Lack of evidence for early belief in MJ.

9) "John"

10) "Matthew"

11) "Luke"

And now the next stage which sadly, seems to be considered as rarely as Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel, even by Jeffrey Gibson approved authors, what should the Criteria be for evaluating the quality of evidence that someone supposedly from 2,000 years ago was Historical?

Amazingly at this point we Typically see a change in Standards, reserved souly for HJ, where the Standard is miraculously changed to:

What evidence would we expect to see if Jesus was Historical?

This reminds me too much of Bistromatics in THGTTG, which fueled Star travel and was based on the observation that small numbers written on scraps of paper within the confines of a restaurant follow their own unique set of mathematical rules. Similarly Christomatics fuels HJ conclusions whereby Standards for Conclusions are different for Christianity than they would be for any other Disciplane. By an Act of Providence Christomatics does not work on these Holy Boards, only on weak- minded fools, so the Standards here will be the Same standards used anywhere else.

Let's try to develop Standards now for Criteria that evidence needs to meet in order to be considered good evidence that someone from 2,000 years ago was historical. Off the top of my head:

1) Credibility of evidence

2) Closeness

3) Contemporary

4) Credibility of witness

5) Consistency

6) Preservation



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gstafleu

I think you are forgetting a step: What in each of the items in the list is actually adduced as evidence for an HJ. Is all of Q evidence, or only parts--if so: which parts and how are they evidence? Same for Paul, Mark etc. Only after that has been stated can one discuss the quality of the suggested evidence.

Gerard Stafleu

JoeWallack

JW:
Herein Lies the Key to this Thread. Everything a Source says needs to be considered in order to evaluate the weight of any individual piece of evidence within the source. Normally, the credibility of the Source is more important than the credibility of what specifically is said (however, there is an important exception in this discussion for Impossible claims).

This is the problem with the Mythical HJ argument. HJs are cherry picking supposed evidence for HJ without properly considering the overall credibility of the Source (based on everything said). Homily don't play that game.

I've changed my criteria now for evaluating the Quality of evidence to:

1) Credibility of evidence

2) Closeness of witness to subject

3) Credibility of witness

4) Consistency of evidence

5) Personal nature of evidence

6) Preservation of evidence

Let's consider Paul first since he is one of the earliest sources and there is a consensus on what he wrote. Keep in mind the Standards here should be the same used in any other discipline.

I'll start out here with short summaries which will need to be further developed, but just to get things started:

1) Credibility of evidence

The emphasis of Paul's witness is he claims Impossible knowledge of Jesus and discredits Possible knowledge of Jesus. Since Paul's emphasis is on the Impossible, his evidence as a whole is not credible.

2) Closeness of witness to subject

Paul appears to be contemporary to Jesus but apparently never knew him and does not claim any knowledge of Jesus from knowing him. Therefore, Paul was not close to Jesus.

3) Credibility of witness

Paul's credibility is impeached by 1) and his basic arguments that his vision of Jesus is the logical succession from the Jewish Bible are not credible. Paul is not a credible witness.

4) Consistency of evidence

Paul is generally consistent within his writings and what little he writes about HJ generally agrees with other Christian authors. However, what he writes about himself is inconsistent with what Acts writes about him. Paul's consistency of evidence is Mixed.

5) Personal nature of evidence

Paul's evidence is uniquely unique to Jesus and therefore Personal.

6) Preservation of evidence

There is a consensus of the genuine letters of Paul with some disputed parts. There is also a consensus that there are numerous Forged letters of Paul and controversy over the authenticity of some. The preservation of Paul's evidence is mixed.

Summary of Paul as evidence for HJ:

1) Credibility of evidence - Fail

2) Closeness of witness to subject - Fail

3) Credibility of witness - Fail

4) Consistency of evidence - Neutral

5) Personal nature of evidence - Pass

6) Preservation of evidence - Neutral

By these criteria than, Paul by himself is not good evidence for HJ.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gstafleu

You're doing the other guy's work for him! A very Christian attitude, no doubt, but probably not productive in this case. When someone says "Mark is evidence for an HJ," your first question should be: "OK, what in Mark is evidence for an HJ, and why." If you answer that yourself, your opponent can say you didn't get it right and so set up a straw-man debate. Let him come up with the evidence himself. Only after that can your list of evidence evaluation kick in with any effect.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

I disagree with the "pass" for "personal nature of evidence", there is no personal evidence with respect to Jesus, just a repetition, ad nauseum, of the words 'Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, our Lord Jesus, our Lord Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ, the son of God, over 600 times, with almost no personal information.

Paul himself claimed that he no personal knowledge, just revelations, and according to you, he has failed criteria 1, 2, and 3, therefore only an "F", in my opinion, can be attained for criteria 5.

Chili

But Joe, if Peter was the faith of Jesus and Thomas the doubt of Peter we don't want a historical Jesus. All we need is a historical Paul to be our first Pope who started this new religon on the insight of Peter the rock.

Heck man, we would never want a historical Jesus lest he be worshiped by the flock instead of just being 'the way' (as in "follow me") and thus not 'the end' (as in "mother there is your son, son there is your mother").

mountainman

How about an inscription dedicated to the HJ?
Perhaps an epitaph such as this ...

'This man, named after Chestos,
and shining forth Judaea,
extinguished the faults of men.
The tomb in Judaea (received) his body,
but in truth heaven received him
so that he might drive out the pains of men
(or:drive pains from among men) .'

--- Ancient inscription, to Jesus Christ.

Please note that the names above have been
changed in order to protect the innocent.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

JoeWallack

JW:
Let me expand on what I mean by "Personal nature of evidence". The emphasis is on information which is Specific to an individual. In other words, the Focus is on the Subject rather than the Subject being secondary to something else. Paul is clear that his Jesus is not only the main thing, it's the only thing.

A qualification here is that the evidence needs to include a minimum amount of Possible references. We would all agree that most of Paul's references are Impossible but I think he does have a minimum amount of Possible ones. The quality of the evidence here is proportional to unique possible references. I'm not sure if Paul gives any unique possible references to his Jesus. Something other than "Jesus died", "Jesus was crucified", "Jesus was born of woman". Something like, "Jesus died on this date", "Jesus was crucified at this time and place", "Jesus' mother was".

Still, I think Paul passes the Personal nature of evidence test because of his Focus on Jesus as the Big Cheezus, the SanHedrin Honcho, El-Numero Uno and Alpha One along with a minimum number of Possible references. Does anyone want to challenge me on the number of references (or for the Limeys or Outbacks, "sconce me?").



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

aa5874

You have highlighted the problem even more. You have not establised the specific personal nature of the evidence. That a Jesus was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended are not evidence that can be specifically applied to a personal nature, these events, if they occurred at all, would have been done in the view of the public.

The Paul of the Epistles just stuck to his story, but his story is not credible, because his claims to personal revelations would have already been known personally by the apostles who knew Jesus and even, hilariously, some saints long dead who were resurrected at the crucifixion of this Jesus.

And further, it can be shown that Paul's revelations of his Jesus are not personal at all but are derived, very likely, from the author of Luke.

1 Corinthians 15.3-5, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I have received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,
And that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures,
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve...

Now, the author of Luke is the only writer of the Gospels to claim that Cephas or Simon Peter saw Jesus before the eleven apostles.

Luke 24.33-34 & 36, "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
(36) And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them....."

And in another instance, Paul's revelations of his Jesus are virtually identical to the author of Luke. At the Last Supper, no other Gospel but Luke wrote that Jesus said, "This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

Paul's Jesus did reveal the almost identical words in 1Corinthians 11. 24, "... this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Paul's story about the death, resurrection, and ascension of his revealed Jesus lacks credibility, no personal nature of evidence of his revealed Jesus can be ascertained. Paul has failed in every respect.

Minimalist

Thanks for the smile. Apollonius may have been the real mccoy!