Peter Kirby

Metacrock also agreed to the statement that "one cannot prove a negative," e.g. that a figure such as Herakles, Asclepius, or Jesus did not exist. An impossible burden, then?

Metacrock also contended that doubt is OK for such figures that have fallen out of popular consciousness as having reality (Zeus was mentioned, though I would have named another). This suggests that, if Christianity was snuffed out in the 3rd-4th century (though with a few documents surviving), then by historical accident we would be justified in doubting the existence of Jesus. (The same would be true if we were discussing this in the former USSR, where the non-existence of Jesus was acceptable if not preferrable as a historical belief.)

Anyway, perhaps someone wants to persuade others, not that "Jesus did not exist," but that "the primary sources are not such that they historically justify certitude about the life of Jesus of Nazereth." Surely contemporary opinion about Jesus is irrelevant to determining the truth value of that statement? Assuming that some standards of historical justification can be agreed upon, one evaluates the source documents in terms of them, and one reaches a conclusion as to how good the evidence is for the HJ.

For example, one persistent Usenet poster, whom I debated, held the highly consistent belief that hearsay, human testimony that is not known as an eyewitness, is never satisfactory evidence. Since the only ancient evidence for Jesus consists of written accounts, and since of those accounts he regarded none of them as being first hand eyewitness of Jesus in person, he reached the conclusion that the evidence for HJ is insufficient. In truth, the only way to respond (besides promoting a document to eyewitness status) is to contest the necessity of a report being by an eyewitness (which was my response). But the idea is a nice one: attempting to find some methods of sifting through history and then applying them.

I do agree that, insofar as the flatearther and the HJ-believer normally have the idea taken as a matter of course and have trouble even understanding alternatives, simply pointing out a lack of proof will not convince a person to relinquish the opinion.

best,
Peter Kirby

spin

Nearly all of them are irrelevant, as they are neither (near) contemporary nor objective in intent. We can discuss the rest.

You may assume that they are, but that's not good enough. You may assume that these hypothetical communities followed Jesus's teachings, but that's not good enough. You know little about your documents, have only contradictory traditions to support them and you have no way of verifying their contents. Too bad.

Paul has been bowdlerized. He knew a Cephas.

And John the Baptist's hand is in the Topkapi Museum. Go and have a look. You'll find the hand. Whose going to ask the obvious epistemological question?

Having looked at both, I see no historical way to date them, so how can one make use of their testimony?

Grin. Some of them may have been as gullible as you.

And we have a tomb of Jesus in India. Traditions are not history.

And what exactly does this have to do with your other assertions?

All of what? Christian apologetic has been around for a long time dealing with all sorts of problems, but it is still apologetic, isn't it?

I don't agree. But then I'm agnostic.

So? Is there some sort of axiom here that says, "because it's been around for a long time it is probably correct"?

Like I've already said, I don't support Doherty, so I see no reason to do so here. You are the one with the substantive position. For me the onus is fairly on you to do your work rather than rest on the laurels of a few millennia's apologetics.


spin

Rick Sumner

Metacrock is quite incorrect. Of course you can "prove" a negative, for all meaningful intents and purposes. It's not snowing in my living room right now. There was never a great pyramid constructed in downtown Calgary. Calgary, Alberta is not a part of the USA. Tom Joad is not an historical character. Nor, for that matter, was Moses.

Can you "prove" a negative in the strict sense of the term? Of course not, but arguing that position is a slippery, slippery slope. Proof only exists in mathematics: There is no real world equivalent to "=".

Isn't historical accident where most ancient history comes from? Excluding, for the moment, that which is verified externally, of course.

And I'm not stating that Metacrock is correct at large, indeed I noted that I generally disagree. Simply that he is correct on this point, and that it's a point where the burden of proof is frequently shifted.

Depends on who's asking, and who you're trying to convince. Would I be justified in appealing to popular opinion among academics as a dismissal of such a position? Yep. Doesn't mean I'm right, it means I'm fully justified in carrying on as though I am--it can be employed as a working hypothesis without any research on my part at all.

Want a good example? I know absolutely nothing about biology. Never took so much as a high school biology class. I have absolutely no reservation about saying that evolution is a fact, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with me carrying on as though it is so. Could turn out that it isn't--I could be entirely wrong, and would have absolutely no idea why--that doesn't mean I'm not justified in employing it as my conclusion. It enjoys support of those whose opinion matters--it's not right because it's popular, it's popular because it's right. The burden of proof is with the dissenter.

It's also a fantasy. History is, by its very nature, a subjective inquiry.

My concern isn't that a lack of proof isn't presented, and indeed if one were to take my examples to the extreme, no productive debate would ever occur, which isn't what I intend to inspire either.

My concern is that the burden of proof is forever shifted, where "can't prove a negative" becomes an entirely false ad hoc, and the historicist is forced to bear a burden of proof that he shouldn't, while the mythicist whiles away their time chanting "Prove it."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby

Actually, I agree with you.

It does depend on a completeness of data, though, about your living room, about Calgary, etc. Such that does not exist for 1st century Palestine.

I was referring, not to what records survive, but to what the social and academic climate is here and now.

So I've heard. I wasn't suggesting a "historical fact algorithm." I was suggesting that historians do attempt to evaluate their sources concerning reliability.

This fellow's evaluation included the idea that a document not by an eyewitness did not count as evidence.

The kind of appeal of which you speak is valid in its place (e.g. among those for whom the matter is not a subject of their study).

However, among people who are conversant in the subject materials, and for whom the question is not merely a peripheral one, it's time to discuss the evidence itself. If all that is ever done is to invoke authority, one begins to wonder if that authority is based on the facts of the case.

Finally, "burden of proof" speak has never, in my experience, changed any minds, one way or another. One can choose to write a proof without having some "burden" of doing so. I know I'd love to see it! (and I mean either way)

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

It doesn't exist for 10th century BCE Egypt either, and yet there was no Moses. I understand your point, I'm just not persuaded that it applies here.

And I agree--I noted that no progress would be made if my explanations were taken to the extreme.

My concern, again, is that it frequently runs amok resulting in nothing more than ad hocs.

For an frequent example, it is often claimed that historicists "presuppose ground zero" when applying embarassment (and I'm no apologist for embarassment, having more than once expressed my concerns with it). This is nonsense. It is utterly impossible to "presuppose" ground zero. Ground zero is explicitly defined in the New Testament (most clearly, of course, in Luke-Acts). You can't presuppose from that. The burden rests on the dissenter to show why that *isn't* ground zero, not on the historicist to show that it is. No matter how you cut it, the historicist's position is a posteriori, not a priori, and he owns no immediate burden of proof on the matter whatsoever.

My concern, stated more simply, is that the burden of proof is forever shifted, and forever shifted in the direction of the historicist.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Metacrock

No that's wrong! in defining him as "a literary figure" you are defining him as fictional from the outset. Jesus was never understood as ficiton. Never! He was not understood that way by the Mishna writters who were his contemporaries, nor by their redactors who complied the Mishna, nor by Jospehus writting latter in the century (remember the "borther of James" passage if not the TF) nor by anyone else. he was never understood that way. YOu are assigning that priority to the text that it shouldn't have. He was understood as a historical figure and these are texts about that historical figure.








I just showed there is. Because no one in history as close as we can go to the orignal events on any kind of writting ever assumed other than that he was a real guy. No one ever says otherwise!

Tu Compron? (note the insulting familiar tu form)


Vershtein? Get the drift?

That is a reason to think he was real. Why can't you see that? The fact that everyone else in the world from the day he died until the 19th century thought he was real, is a reason to assume he was real! the fact that there is no counter evidence or historical reason to think otherwise is a reason to think he was real. Why can't you see that i't's so palinly obvious!???



I sure don't have any evidence of you thinking!



grow up! It's not a matter of just being able to think of a possiblity. We have to make assumptions as historians. We have to decide what criteria to use for those assumptions. My whole point is if we use myther assumptions we can just kiss the historical record good bye. I can doubt everything. I can doubt my own existence!



I didn't say it was about presistence. Are you blind? I said the assumption has presumption becasue there's no counter evidence! History is about the record, but hey, where's the recorded evidence that Jesus wasn't real? why haven't you given that to me?

you guys (mythers) just want to do history by imagination. If you can think of a possiblity that's good enough. That's not it. that 's not going to cut it.



wish I knew what that was about.



NOPNONONONONNN!!! that's a late 20th century Sec WEb infidels special and it's a stupid assumption! No you can't assume everything is fiction until proven otherwise. There's no reason anywhere to ever assume the Gospels were only understood as ficition.

yes there assumptions do matter. Because if no one every knew for certain that Jesus was not real, someone would have questioned it. Because the whole community knew he was a real guy no one ever questioned it and all the facts were set in stone that's why there's only one version of the story. so their assumptions do matter. Why they wrote the things matter. To the early Christians they were carrying out the teachings of a real flesh and blood master, that's why they died for it, why they kicked out those who said he didn't come in the flesh. And that understanding when back to the original community which actually saw him.


why is it that all the major people who suppossedly knew him were real historical people but he wasn't? that makes no sense at all.



you are wrong. learn something

Peter Kirby

I may be wrong, but the major argument against the existence of Moses is that the Israelite people did not migrate from Egypt as described in Exodus.

This is chiefly supported by archaeology. Is that it? I'm not all that conversant here...

So, would there be some kind of expected archaeological evidence against the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, if he did not exist?

(For what it's worth, I hate the use of the term a priori in history; more specifically, in the history of religion, as I haven't seen it elsewhere. It's supposed to be a philosophical term for knowledge prior to sense experience. Obviously this does not apply to historical opinions. More substantially...)

Something is being assumed about the nature of the work Luke-Acts (assumed in the sense that it is the premise of a further argument). That assumption needs to be worked out. In this context, it is that the Gospel of Luke is a historically-based type of writing that deserves to qualify as good historical evidence. Now, once that is done, super!

The "Burden of Proof" is invoked by all sides. Craig Blomberg, for example, maintains that one has to accept a story in the Gospels as being true unless a very good reason is presented for believing it is not true.

My own view of "Burden of Proof" is that it is a couch potato tactic: I don't want to get up and do work to justify what I say--so prove my wrong, Nyaa! Really, there is no burden unless you want to bear it. That is, if you want to change a person's mind, expect to work a little to get a persuasive case to do it. If you don't care to do so, don't expect a person to be swayed by demands upon his person to show otherwise. (All generic "you.")

Also, like I said, I would really love to see a reasonably thorough evaluation where the evidence weighed fairly (regardless of posturing about consensus and burden). And I am hardly alone in that. Why speak of a burden when it could be a pleasant thing to know the merits of the evidence?

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

no one assumed ever that they were not histrical. NO one in history ever assumed the Gospels were just fiction, from the very first time a pagan ever read them. No one ever made that assumption.[b]they may have doubted the events but they never assumed they were intended to be fiction[/.b]



No! Its' not. please learn what that means!?? I've never seen a more abused concept than appeal to authority/popularity among atheists and skeptics. Its' as though they give atheists lessons in not understanding informal fallacies.

It's quite simple man, just open your mind! If no one ever assumed it was fiction, then maybe it's not! We have no reason to think it is. So the assumption that it is is a challenge that has to be proven because the one who thinks it is is advancing a new argument. if you advance an argument you have to prove it the one who makes the argument has to prove it!


No! Not when the assumption is universal! Besides why would I have to establish the credibility of everyone!?? Everyone assumed Jesus was real, no one every challenged it. So challenging it is a new argument, it's agisnt the presumption. Do you not understand presumption? Don't you know even the most basic concepts of debate? Don't you even know who has the burden of proof in an arugment? The one who seeks to overturn the status quo as the burden of proof to make a primise facie case. which you can't do with no evidence. You have to overturn presumption by proving it's wrong! Don't you know even that much!???

Yo, dude seriously now. Go look up books on debate. look for the rules of debate for the national Forensic league. You will see I know what I'm talking about.



God that's so foolish! NO NonONONOO it's not the status quo because it's wrong. It's the status que SO IT"S ASSUMed to be right until it's proven otherwise! That's the way all debate is done.


why do we have inocent until proven guilty? Because the citizen of a democracy as presumption. We assume he/she is a good citizen and has rights and is innocent until it can proven otherwise.

what you are saying is coutner to the most basic rules of logic and debate. I know this man, get any standard text book on rules of debate and you will see. Historians do it this way too. WE don't just accept any wild theory just because it's new. Acadmeic life is conservative by nautre. Academics accept the established order until there's a reason not to. think about it!


that also reflects upon your hatred of christianity. you wouldn't even consider this topic if it was anyone else but Jesus because that's the ure fire defeat of those you hate.



They can't be tested because you can't produce any proof. Argument from silence isn't proof. Going "this is new" is not proof.Going "they have assumed that for so long it's time to assme a new idea" is not proof. You have no proof. and you can't find any. All you can ever have on this topic is circumstantial evidence and argument form silence. that's not history! That's high shcool popularity contest.


Well yea there is, the fact that on one every questioned it and there is no evidence to the contrary, those are reasons! those are reasons! they are good reasons!


perhaps you would like to read a book about the rules of debate.

try Argumentation and Rational Debating by David C. Dick. That's what I used when I was introdued to high school debate.

Try the logic books by C.I. Lewis for example. Not to be confussed with C.S.

Or try some of these names:

Mark Aronold
Polk
Parsons
Robin Roland
Jackon Herrall

Metacrock

Geeeezzzzzzzzz. Look, just take the thinking expressed so far, status quo has to be wrong, anything asserted in a religious document is fictional, religoius people must have tons of archaeologial evidence but skeptics don't have to ever prove anything, and use that to ask questions like "How do we know Rome existed?" We really don't. We dont' have anyone who was in ancient Rome. If we have to assume the people writting about then, then I can find a "new idea" as to why they aren't trust worthy, they were all religoius you know, and volia, no evidence that ancient Rome ever existed.

All all buildings and monuments were actually part of Egypt. I have a dime with Mercury on it, does that mean Mercury existed? You can dig up the foundations for all human thought that way.

why do you have to find that Moses didn't exist? why is that important to you?

Rick Sumner

We could, for example, reasonably expect some sort of opposition movement. Conversely, we could possibly expect the epistolary silence (I'm not persuaded of the validity of either argument, incidentally).

We aren't going to get conclusive proof--like I said, there is no real world equivalent to "="--what we can get is an assessment of what the most reasonable conclusion is. In real world application, that *is* "proof," and it can run in the negative every bit as easily as the positive--there is nothing preventing "proving a negative."

If I look at Luke and say "This is a narrative based on a man named Jesus in Galilee c. 30 CE," I have assumed nothing. That's what it claims to be. It's prima facie. There is no "presupposing ground zero" in that--again, reason needs to be given to doubt, not t'other way 'round.

I'm speaking in the more specific context of this board.

Certainly true sometimes. Other times not so much. If, for example, you say "Philo wrote that he loved eating with Jesus because drinks were always free," and I say "He did? Where?" You pretty clearly own the burden of proof, and I wouldn't be a "couch potato" if I pointed out that a reference might be handy. If you failed to find such a reference, I'd be rather justified in concluding that I was right in questioning the veracity of the citation, based on your inability to meet the burden of proof. It's an oversimplified example, but you get the drift.

(If, however, you have such a reference handy, I'd definitely be interested in having a look :P)

Regards,
Rick Sumner