mountainman

You have only outlined trivialities such as this:



You have already agreed that the Bayesian expression uses e and b. These are defined as:

Discussion here assumes a basic background knowledge about both a great deal of evidence and its corresponding postulates at the foundation of various historical theories of christian origins, and it also assumes a basic background knowledge of the RELEVANT total background knowledge. It does not need consider trivialities.


Being pedantic and trivial is a mistake. Try being pedantic and non trivial for a change. For the sake of another example, let's examine Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea. There is a great consensus of opinion between all people who have studied this author that he was an historical figure who was the author responsible for a large number of literary works in the 4th century including the "History of the Christian Church".

The hypothesis that "Eusebius existed" is held to be true by the consensus of those who have studied this author, in the implicit sense. They do not need to look up Eusebius on twitter or fb to extend their evidence or their background knowledge about the subject.

J-D

My response was no more trivial than your question. There would be just as much point in your trying to answer my question as in my trying to answer yours. If Bilbo Baggins really is relevant to this discussion, then Google+ and Twitter are just as relevant.

mountainman

some examples of Biblical Scholars using the term "hypotheses about Jesus" explicitly in relation to the field of BC&H.

"hypotheses about jesus"


Author Interview
N.T. Wright, author of The Challenge of Jesus


Is it necessarily true that the hypotheses about Jesus are logically prior, in fact, to hypotheses about Gospel origins? Why?

It is clear with this and other examples that hypotheses about what is thinkable in relation to Jesus must also make provision to include ideas in relation to his historical existence (or mythological existence). This is in addition to hypotheses about the words of Jesus or the actions of jesus or the teachings of jesus or the apostles of jesus, etc.

J-D

I can't see anything that makes it necessarily true. Can you?No.

mountainman

Chronology

Separate hypotheses about each of the items of evidence (including people) may also be formulated with respect to chronology. These are supposed to answer the WHEN questions. Ditto for WHERE, HOW and WHY.

J-D

Ignoring the objections to your approach does not make the flaws go away.

mountainman

There are various historical theories of christian origins and all of them address the existence of Jesus. The following 6 statements appear to summarise the range of conclusions of the bulk of all mainstream and non-mainstream theories about Jesus and Christian origins. (For the purpose of discussion "Christian Origins" here relates to the physical authorship of the books of the canonical new testament, and to the physical authorship of the non canonical books - "Gnostic Gospels, etc")

Mainstream and Non mainstream summary conclusions

"Jesus existed and christian origins are events of the 1st century"

"Jesus existed and christian origins are events of the 1st and 2nd century"

"Jesus existed and christian origins are events of the 2nd century".



"Jesus didn't exist and christian origins are events of the 1st century"

"Jesus didn't exist and christian origins are events of the 1st and 2nd century"

"Jesus didn't exist and christian origins are events of the 2nd century"

These are the conclusions and approaches being examined. I do not favor any of these, as you may know. Nevertheless I can sketch the basic range of theories that most other investigators (of various kinds) seem to be associated with. All these conclusions are provisional and hypothetical, and all rely on a KNOWN and REASONABLY STATIC evidence base, the major items of which are the books of the canonical new testament, the non canonical books of the new testament, and for matters of chronology, the "History of the Church" by Eusebius.

J-D

As conclusions, none of those statements are sufficiently clearly expressed.

Toto

The problem is that you are not examining them. You haven't said anything coherent about any of these theories or how to decide their relative probability given any selection of evidence.

Is there any reason for this thread to exist in this forum?

mountainman

They sketch the bounds of mainstream and non mainstream theory space. I do not regard these statement to be unintelligible. If you think you can improve on any one as a blueprint for the others by all means state your case by example. Maybe start with "Jesus existed and christian origins are events of the 1st century", since this is what many people appear to conclude. How would you describe this segment of the theory space? By theory space I mean the shape and characteristics of all theories in the field - they have bounds (via the evidence) in logic and in chronology.