mountainman

Case Studies » Gospel of Judas describes the process of examining an item of evidence for the presence of both positive and negative evidence, the latter being described as evidence of fabrication.

Toto

The McCrone link uses the term "negative evidence" to refer to positive evidence that would negate the authenticity of the document. This is a different use of the term from your other link, where "negative evidence" is defined as a lack of evidence where it would be expected.

It makes no sense to combine these two categories. And forgery does not fit into either of these categories. Clifford Irving's forgery of an autobiography of Howard Hughes cannot seriously be used as evidence showing that Howard Hughes did not exist.

aa5874

It makes very little sense to use a KNOWN figure of history like Howard Hughes.

We have the Pauline writings where it has been deduced that letters called Pastorals under the name of Paul were NOT written by the same persons as those called "authentic".

How can it be shown that somebody by the name of Paul must have existed before the Fall of the Temple and was known to write Epistles without a single corroborative non-apologetic source?

It cannot be done.

This is no different to the authors of the Gospel who claimed Jesus said and did things that were merely COPIED from sources of Fiction.

The forged biography of Howard Hughes cannot ever be used as a credible historical source for Howard Hughes.

Fraudulent writings with the name Paul simply cannot make Paul a figure of history.

Doug Shaver

Well, I am impressed, Pete. I don't think I've seen an inerrantist trying to reconcile biblical contradictions who can match your skill at wordplay. You could make "War is peace" look like an analytic truth.

mountainman

Well, I am impressed too, Doug. I was not aware that you were the author of Socrates vs Jesus

The first example of negative evidence above are complete Athenian records but which do not mention Socrates. The second example provide above appears to be the discovery of a document in which the author criticized people for thinking Socrates was real. We might introduce further examples:

(3) A forged copy of Socrates birth certificate
(4) A fabricated account declaring Socrates was the code name for another Athenian.

I see these as examples of negative evidence.


See above.

J-D

It would make perfect sense to use Howard Hughes as an example of a historical figure.Do you think that deduction was correctly made? Why or why not?Several people named Paul existed before the fall of the Temple. The name seems to have been favoured by the Aemilian gens. I don't know whether any evidence survives of their letter-writing habits.Which sources of fiction were those?Then it's a good thing nobody ever said it could be, isn't it?But several people called Paul are referred to in historical writings never shown to be fraudulent.

J-D

Those examples are 'negative' in two different senses, which so far you have failed to distinguish.

mountainman

You might like to ask Doug this question, since I am quoting him. I mentioned another two examples above:

(3) A forged copy of Socrates birth certificate
(4) A fabricated account declaring Socrates was the code name for another Athenian.

All of these things represent negative in contrast to positive evidence.

J-D

It's not a question, although I am unsurprised by your inability to make this basic distinction.

Even if Doug (or anybody else) did fail to distinguish between the two relevant senses of 'negative', that does not justify you in following suit.

mountainman

The first example is an event which did not occur - namely finding Socrates name missing from a list of contemporary Athenians. The second example is a document that asserts Socrates was not real, did not have a birth, a life or a death. If we accept this as a fiction or a fabrication then it represents the assertion of events which did not occur. The 3rd example, A forged copy of Socrates birth certificate, is the fabrication of evidence - the Athenian Registrar of Births did not issue (it was an event which did not occur) this forgery. The 4th example, of a fabricated account declaring Socrates was the code name for another Athenian, is a further example of the assertion of events which did not happen.

The first example - often called argument from silence - I see as just one category of negative evidence. Here events which were expected did not occur. Other categories include forgery and fabrication, where evidence is tendered as genuine and authentic positive evidence towards one conclusion or hypohesis or another, but then classified as inauthentic negative evidence (relative to the overall conclusion or hypothesis) on the basis that the event - the genuine manufacture of the evidence item - is assessed as not having occurred, it having been fabricated or forged.

In all cases negative evidence can be seen as events that did not occur. In the case of the 1st example, the events that did not occur are distinguished by being expected, in the case of the 2nd-4th examples, the events that did not occur are discovered by identifying the fraud or the fabrication for what it is.