lpetrich

In this poll, I present a number of Jesus-historicity hypotheses; I am asking which ones you think that the burden of proof ought to be on.

This is not the same as whether you agree with any of them; you may agree with one of them while thinking that it ought to have the burden of proof.

The hypotheses are:

* All of the Gospels are 100% historical as described, complete with JC's miracles being 100% historical.

* All of the non-miraculous parts of the Gospels are 100% historical, though JC never worked any miracles.

* There is some history in the Gospels, but much of the non-miraculous parts is mythological, as are all of the miraculous parts.

* The JC of the Gospels is essnetially 100% myth, with whatever historical prototypes he might have had garbled beyond recognition.

* I have no opinion one way or another.

* Magical brownies, in case you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Chris Weimer

"Burden of proof" is not a very specific concept to apply to historical studies. Traditionally, if it does not appear in the record, then there has to be an explanation of why it doesn't.

However, if something does appear in the record, then there has to be an explanation of why it shouldn't.

Revisionism is never the default.

Toto

I can't figure out what you are asking. If you want to know who bears the burden of proof, you need to identify an advocate of a position. You have identified some variants of the theory that there was a historical Jesus. Do the advocates of each theory bear the burden of proof against all other theories, or against mythicism?

Minimalist

All Mythical.

youngalexander

Neither can I. However, I would presume that those who put forward propositions, have the burden of proving them.

exmormon

I voted for all except no opinion.

Obviously 1 has a miraculously heavy (so heavy god can't lift it?) burden of proof

2 has a burden of proof almost as high given that it implies Jesus was born both before 6 BCE and after 4 CE (though if you didn't already know that then it merely has a big-ass but not inconceivably heavy burden)

3 is reasonable, but the topic is too complex for there to be a specific and comprehensive null hypothesis, so a burden is on establishing which parts are historical and which are not

4 is reasonable too, I think, as long as the absolutism is toned down just a bit, because what are the chances NONE of it corresponds recognizably to something historical? I sympathize with it but feel it has a higher burden than 3

5 how can you have a burden without a claim?

6 you would have the burden of producing said brownies for the jury to eat.

lpetrich

I decided on this poll after thinking about some threads in which historical-Jesus advocates dismissed Jesus-mythicism as not having a strong-enough case. It seems to me that they consider Jesus-mythicism to have the burden of proof instead of Jesus-historicity. So I thought of a simple summary of Jesus-Christ hypotheses to sort out the HJ possibilities.

My own answer was to give the first, second, and fourth hypotheses the burden of proof, because the third one appears to be the mainstream of scholarly opinion outside of those with doctrinal axes to grind. Yes, although I am inclined to Jesus-mythicism, I accept the burden of proof for that hypothesis.

And Earl Doherty seems to also, at least judging from his Jesus Puzzle published materials.

Toto

I don't find the concept of burden of proof very helpful. A burden of proof in law merely allows one side to win without producing any evidence, just by throwing the burden of proof on the opposing party. In any other field of study, if you don't have any evidence, you just admit that.

Porter_Rockwell

On many forums that I frequent I see a common response to everyday questions that are likely in the FAQ.
Have you tried a forum search?
Curiously I'm going to guess this subject has been done before? Chuckle..

Toto

The question has been discussed before, but not answered. It is not really a well thought out question.