J-D

What reason do you see to accept the claim as negative evidence (whatever you mean by that)?

J-D

If you mean to ask me whether I take the view that there never was such an individual as Bilbo Baggins, then, in the stipulated sense of the term 'Bilbo Baggins' (which is the most usual one), yes, I do take that view.

mountainman

Lighten up Doug. vincit qui se vincit.
Maybe Jesus's father was a Roman soldier.
Happy Saturnalia.

mountainman

I have spent considerable time and effort citing a number of background articles on the concept of negative evidence.

tanya

If you believe that proper knowledge of all foreign languages is a prerequisite to communicating in English, then, one imagines, you would have disapproved of George Washington Carver, who did not commence his own education (leaving the slave owning plantation) until age 12. Would you then dismiss Carver's writings on peanuts (aka groundnuts), because his knowledge of Latin was inadequate to signal the plural properly?

I don't know how to form the plural of I X (with a superscript bar above the I and X). Do you? Does anyone? How does one form the plural of an acronym? We cannot use apostrophe "s", for that is English, not Greek. But Iesous is the Greek transliteration of Hebrew, shouldn't the abbreviation then, be formed as the Semitic languages designate plurality? He was a Jew, no? Does Hebrew even designate plurality on its proper nouns?

mountainman

Then you have indicated that a negative historicity hypothesis may be entertained with respect to Bilbo Baggins. Can the positive historicity hypothesis be entertained, even provisionally, with respect to Bilbo Baggins?My argument is that both the positive and negative historicity hypothesis may be entertained with respect to the character called Jesus in the books of the new testament.

J-D

Be that as it may, you haven't answered the question I just asked you, which was, what reason do you see to accept the claim just referred to as negative evidence?

I find it characteristic and significant that you dodged the question.

Toto

==> Please stop quoting the entire post. It's making this thread difficult to read, in case anyone is still reading it.

Toto

Pete has cited an article that describes "negative evidence" as a lack of evidence, the dog that didn't bark.

But he continues to use negative evidence to refer to evidence that exists but appears to be forged.

I don't know if this argument is serious.

J-D

If we list all the statements made in The Hobbit using the name 'Bilbo Baggins' and use that description to define the meaning of 'Bilbo Baggins', then it is correct to say that in that sense of the term there never really was any such 'Bilbo Baggins'. Anybody who thinks there ever was any such 'Bilbo Baggins' as that is just wrong. This is only a provisional conclusion in the sense that all conclusions whatever are provisional to some degree. In practice there's no serious reason to treat this as an open question. Certainly none has been provided in this thread.

On the other hand, if we use the description 'a Scottish pop band formed in 1972 which released its first single, "Saturday Night", in 1974' to define the meaning of 'Bilbo Baggins', then it is correct to say that in that sense of the term there really was once such a 'Bilbo Baggins'. Anybody who thinks there never was any such 'Bilbo Baggins' as that is just wrong. This is only a provisional conclusion in the sense that all conclusions whatever are provisional to some degree. In practice there's no serious reason to treat this as an open question. Certainly none has been provided in this thread.

If we list some historical facts I mentioned earlier and use them that description to define what is meant by 'Alexander the Great', then it is correct to say that in that sense of the term there really was once such an 'Alexander the Great'. Anybody who thinks there was never was any such 'Alexander the Great' as that is just wrong. This is only a provisional conclusion in the sense that all conclusions whatever are provisional to some degree. In practice there's no serious reason to treat this as an open question. Certainly none has been provided in this thread.

On the other hand, if we list all the statements made using the name 'Alexander the Great' in the so-called 'Alexander romances' and use that description to define what is meant by 'Alexander the Great', then it is correct to say that in that sense of the term there never really was such an 'Alexander the Great'. Anybody who thinks there ever was such an 'Alexander the Great' as that is just wrong. This is only a provisional conclusion in the sense that all conclusions whatever are provisional to some degree. In practice there's no serious reason to treat this as an open question. Certainly none has been provided in this thread.

Now, if you can bring yourself to make a clear statement of one or more senses of the term 'Jesus' that you are interested in, it may be possible to say whether, in each particular sense of the term 'Jesus', (a) there is good reason to take the view that there never really was such a 'Jesus' as that, or (b) there is good reason to take the view that there really was once such a 'Jesus' as that, or (c) it is still an open question whether there ever was such a 'Jesus' as that, and then we might possibly discover some meaningful agreement or, in the alternative, we might possibly discover some meaningful disagreement which could be meaningfully discussed. But if you can't bring yourself to make such a clear statement, the question naturally arises, why not? It won't bring you out in hives, I promise. Even if you insist that you can't see the necessity, why are you so adamant about refusing? It can't do any harm, can it? Why are you so insistent about your evasion of this question?

Why, in short, are you acting like somebody who has something to hide?