Zeichman

Asserting one's burden of proof has nothing to do with an "appeal to authority." If you think it's far from settled, then get a degree and start publishing.

mountainman

And dont forget that the authority for the tradition
stretches all the way back to the fourth century, since
before that time, as we know, the mainstream view is not
well represented, and had little or no political profile.

Also, we have to ask whether analyses and research projects
by groups such as "THE J PROJECT" are restricting themselves
to the literary evidence available to the field of "Biblical History",
or whether they are taking into account a far broader
assessment of the monumental evidence (archaeological, etc)
available to the field of Ancient History.

For example, the ancient historian Michael Grant, in his book
"The Ancient Historians", only gets around with the mention
of any "Jesus" after dealing with the time prior to Josephus,
and mentions Jesus after mentioning the TF.

So the mainstream view of the HJ in the field of BC&H is not
the same thing as the mainstream view of the HJ in the
more general field of Ancient History.

Finally, although neither the HJ or the MJ theorists like
to countenance the possibility of an FJ (Fictional Jesus)
solution to their little proprietory history puzzle, the
fact remains, as I have demonstrated in argument
here and elsewhere, there appears to be no firm
evidence by which it may be ruled out.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

ENOUGH.

Stay on topic, PLEASE.

Please do not create more work for the mods.

Thank you

Toto

lpetrich

Anything recently on the Jesus Project? It seems like that project is now in limbo.

And on the burden-of-proof question, I still think that Jesus-mythicism bears the burden of proof here.

And Earl Doherty, if you are reading this, I wish to ask what your opinion is of the burden-of-proof question.

And it really must be said that no scientific advances were ever accepted because their advocates whined about what orthodox oxen their critics are; they became accepted because their advocates gave good reasons for them to be accepted.

Chris Weimer

Hehe, very well said. :wave:

Toto

R. Joseph Hoffman is in charge. The project is not scheduled to meet until December.

Toto

A group of off topic posts have been split off here while the moderators confer on moderator issues.

spamandham

I don't need to. There are qualified people already doing that. HJ is the majority view, but it is not a unanimous view. To assert that the majority view requires no defending simply because it is the majority view is a cop out. If that were how things worked, the majority view would still be geocentric.

Zeichman

Like who, Richard Carrier? Is any other mythicist seeking a graduate degree in New Testament studies, Early Christianity, or Biblical Studies generally?

Do you just ignore what I say because it's convenient or because you don't understand it. Re-read what I said about pointing out the burden of proof and the appeal to authority. You might want to take a couple of logic classes before you start breaking out your fallacies incorrectly like that.

And you have missed the great irony with your example of the geocentric earth. The very fact that Copernicus took up the burden of proof instead of sitting his basement complaining about how he shouldn't have to prove what he believes is why we're going with a heliocentric solar system now.

spin

To be precise, the historicity of Jesus is the mainstream belief. No-one has ever done the historical work to impute historicity for Jesus. In this case there is no burden of proof, as no effort has been made to substantiate the initial claim. We don't work on popularity, but evidence and there is not a jot of evidence for a historical Jesus so far as I have seen. Yet to talk of a "historical Jesus" implies that somehow Jesus has been shown to be historical, but as this is not the case there is a logical problem with the term, unless it doesn't refer to a Jesus who is historical, but a Jesus who one believes existed. Lots of things existed or happened that aren't historical. It means that they haven't been recorded in any (reliable) way. Something is historical when it can be shown to have existed or happened.

The burden of proof in the matter of the "historical Jesus" is where it has always been, though that has so far been ignored. It is ridiculous to claim that the burden of proof is with the party that doesn't accept something that has not been shown. Popularity is a poor scholarly criterion on which to base anything. Throughout the world in almost all cultures people believe in ghosts. Would the same people who require for those who are skeptical about the historicity of Jesus the burden of proof also require it for those people who are skeptical about ghosts?? For that matter the belief in deity is an even more popular. Does one have the burden of proof to show that the common deity doesn't exist?? You need your head examined if you believe this. Why is lpetrich's imputation of burden of proof any better?



Here's another one who insists on there being a binary taxonomy regarding Jesus: either historical or mythical. Zeichman, why do you participate in the blunder? Is it that you are using a very liberal understanding of the term "mythical" (and hence "mythicist") or do you shamelessly assume that you've covered the field?

Copernicus had evidence to confront. His burden of proof was to demonstrate a better explanation of the evidence than the previous explanation. In the case of a historical Jesus there is no evidence on the table. There is no burden of proof when there is no evidence in contention, unless it is to provide some evidence for mainstream belief.

So what is it, Zeichman, are you going to be reasonable regarding burden of proof or would you also require burden of proof for positions against any mainstream belief?


spin