JonA

Read my response again; pay close attention to the words I use, such as 'proposed' and 'falsifiable':

The fact that he is proposed to be a flesh and blood critter who interacted observably with the natural world, for one thing, is sufficient to make him falsifiable.

No; it hasn't. Nothing becomes 'unfalsifiable on the basis of evidence'. Something is falsifiable or not on the basis of what comprises it—as an hypothesis, not as a reality.

Jon

Toto

But every time critics point out the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus, the historicists have a ready explanation.

So as a practical matter, the historical Jesus hypothesis has become unfalsifiable.

Or would you like to explain what evidence you would look for?

jgoodguy

An HJ could be falsifiable on the basis of an argument from silence if there were numerous documents from 1st Century Judea not mentioning a HJ when they 'should have'. Outside of late dating of some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I am not aware of any written documentation originating in Judea in existence today. The current attempt to use the argument of silence fails because it is against the background of an almost complete blackout of information from Judea. Additional information could also point to Christianity beginning in Alexandra or otherwise outside of Judea and that would falsify a HJ.

jgoodguy

On a related issue, is the Jesus Myth falsifiable?

Toto

Easily, if someone actually found those records of executions under Pilate, or an ossuary with Jesus' bones in it, or lead codices that could be verified to date to 50 CE or before with stories about Jesus, or even the lost volume of Tacitus' history for the year 30 in Palestine, recounting the crucifixion of that trouble maker Jesus. That's why people keep trying to forge artifacts that relate to Jesus, because there is a market for this.

But when each new artifact is proven to be a forgery, the faithful still believe.

JonA

I already did:

A better explanation for the early Christian movement would also work; as supplanting an hypothesis with a better one is, in historical studies, as good as tentatively falsifying the former.

Jon

Toto

So Richard Carrier in 2002 examined Doherty's thesis and decided that it was a better explanation of the evidence than the historicist hypothesis. He left open the option that historicists might refine their theory and come up with a better one, but no one has done so, so far.

Are you now a mythicist?

jgoodguy

True true for a thousand and more years. Then again there is a market for JM books and speakers so I hope the existence of a market does not falsify either the HJ or JM positions.

I personally would expect the JM folks to cry forgery if a signed birth certificate for Yehoshua with a Joseph and Mary as parents or at least point out the names are common in 1st Century Judea. The same for any execution notice of a Yehoshua which would be dismissed as merely a similar common name and just coincidental. A written report by a Roman centurion about a resurrection would be dismissed out of hand for any number of reasons. Multiple reports of walking ghosts in Jerusalem in circa 30 CE would be just mass hysteria or conspiracy. I cannot conceived of any tangible, primary or credible evidence that would be sufficient for a dedicated JM advocate.

Said lead codices would be taken apart and proven to be merely modifications of existing pagan myths.

As a dedicated agnostic, I would reject the reports for the same reasons.

Toto

Why? There are a number of people on the fence, who think of themselves as agnostic. A sufficiently credible piece of evidence would tip the balance in favor of historicism. The problem is that all of the evidence produced so far is less than credible, but that could change.

Steven Carr

I think you are confusing two different groups of people.

The people who rubbish findings of a Mary , Joseph and Jesus are Christian apologists wedded to the idea that Jesus existed.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...s_response.htm

But don't let the real world confuse you.