Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 05-05-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

...
However, a controversial pro-Albanian Cambridge scholar, Neil Malcolm has reconstructed the whereabouts of the Patriarch and the circumstances of his flight from contemporary documents and they (if true) make mincemeat of the Serbian historical account. The documents put Arsenije was in different places than believed and make his flight from Kosovo 'too fast' for him to have led a mass of refugees. This would be an example of documented historical falsehood. ...

Noel Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If history can be maunfactured so easily and so recently, how does this help the case for historicity of Jesus?

It debunks the silly notion that the appearance of Jesus early as God indicates that he was never human. The same silly motion held by you, Doherty, et al.

Toto · 05-05-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Noel Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History (or via: amazon.co.uk)

If history can be maunfactured so easily and so recently, how does this help the case for historicity of Jesus?

It debunks the silly notion that the appearance of Jesus early as God indicates that he was never human. The same silly motion held by you, Doherty, et al.

This is something of a caricature of everyone's views except those of aa5874, is it not?

But do you think that Malcolm would have been able to construct his case if the Great Migration had been a legend from 2000 years ago, as opposed to a few centuries?

Adonael · 05-05-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus did not exist in the 1st century, then there would be no evidence of his existence in the 1st century.

Lets flip this around to its logical equivalent (transposition): if there is evidence of jesus' existence in the 1st century, then jesus existed in the first century.

the problems with this is at mere evidence for existence does not necessarily give good reason to believe jesus existed.

Solitary Man · 05-05-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

It debunks the silly notion that the appearance of Jesus early as God indicates that he was never human. The same silly motion held by you, Doherty, et al.

This is something of a caricature of everyone's views except those of aa5874, is it not?

But do you think that Malcolm would have been able to construct his case if the Great Migration had been a legend from 2000 years ago, as opposed to a few centuries?

No, not quite. I've seen it repeated over and over again, even sometimes by you, with different wording, but with the meaning intact.

And yes, it's quite possible. We do it all the time. Have a look at scholarship concerning the Historia Augusta sometime.

aa5874 · 05-05-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adonael

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Jesus did not exist in the 1st century, then there would be no evidence of his existence in the 1st century.

Lets flip this around to its logical equivalent (transposition): if there is evidence of jesus' existence in the 1st century, then jesus existed in the first century.

the problems with this is at mere evidence for existence does not necessarily give good reason to believe jesus existed. secondly, we can easily imagine there being evidence for jesus' existence and yet jesus did not actually exist.

I am totally confused by your post.

If a claim is made that Jesus existed in the 1st century and there is evidence for such a claim, then it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did exist, if there is none then, Jesus can be considered to have not existed.

Toto · 05-05-2008, 01:02 PM

Historia Augusta

Quote:

Historia Augusta: modern name of a collection of (bogus) biographies of Roman emperors of the second and third centuries.

...

One of the most charming aspects is the introduction of fake information, especially in the second half. At least one ruler has been invented, remarkable omens are introduced, and anecdotes are added. The information in the second half of the life of the decadent emperor Heliogabalus is very entertaining, but completely untrue, and only introduced as a contrast to the biography of his successor Severus Alexander, who is presented as the ideal ruler. Ancient readers must have loved these mirror images, and may have smiled when the author of the Life of Heliogabalus accused other authors of making up charges to discredit the emperor, and used them all the same.

The "minor" biographies (i.e. the lives of co-rulers and usurpers) are usually entirely invented. Of course this means that the Historia Augusta is not reliable as a source for these lives, but it is a very valuable source for those who want to reconstruct the values and ideas of the the senatorial elite of ancient Rome. The pagan senators were obviously credulous people, who preferred a vie romancée and were not interested in real biography. They liked novels and fiction, not history and facts. This literary taste is older than the Historia Augusta: the first example from the Roman world is the vie romancée of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus, which is in turn inspired by the Education of Cyrus by Xenophon.

...

Among the many games that are played in the Historia Augusta is the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced in the introduction of the Life of Aurelian. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them. This is, to the best knowledge of the author of this article, unique in ancient literature; the only possible (but unlikely) exception is, again, the source "Damis" that is used by Philostratus in his vie romancée of Apollonius of Tyana.

I wondered if mm had missed this, but he thought Eusebius must have been the forger. Instead, this just shows the standards for popular history and biography of the time.

(And who are we to look down on the Romans, when many of us consider our major source of news to be the fake news of late night TV?)

What part of the description of HA does not fit the Christian literature of the time, especially if you include the apocrypha, but even if you look at the gospels?

remarkable omens are introduced, and anecdotes are added. ... very entertaining, but completely untrue . . . the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced . . . They liked novels and fiction, not history and facts . . .

It seems to me that the historical value of the gospels has been almost completely undermined by standard NT scholarship, so the NT is no more reliable than the HA - but still historicists cling to the claim of a historical core at the center of the onion.

Toto · 05-05-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....
I am totally confused by your post.

If a claim is made that Jesus existed in the 1st century and there is evidence for such a claim, then it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did exist, if there is none then, Jesus can be considered to have not existed.

At this point, I have to question whether you understand the argument at all, and whether I should start splitting your posts off as distractions.

Adonael · 05-05-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If a claim is made that Jesus existed in the 1st century and there is evidence for such a claim, then it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did exist, if there is none then, Jesus can be considered to have not existed.

You mentioned nothing about a claim being made. you merely said:

If Jesus did not exist in the 1st century, then there would be no evidence of his existence in the 1st century.

Just because something is evidence for a proposition does not make that proposition probably true. Evidence for a proposition is merely that a proposition increases in probability respective to that particular evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the proposition becomes probably true.

P(h/e&K) > P(h/k)= mere evidence for a proposition that increases the probability of that proposition
P(h/e&k) >0.5= evidence for a proposition that makes the proposition probably true

aa5874 · 05-05-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If a claim is made that Jesus existed in the 1st century and there is evidence for such a claim, then it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did exist, if there is none then, Jesus can be considered to have not existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adonael

You mentioned nothing about a claim being made. you merely said:

If Jesus did not exist in the 1st century, then there would be no evidence of his existence in the 1st century.

Just because something is evidence for a proposition does not make that proposition probably true. Evidence for a proposition is merely that a proposition increases in probability respective to that particular evidence, it does not necessarily mean that the proposition becomes probably true.

P(h/e&K) > P(h/k)= mere evidence for a proposition that increases the probability of that proposition
P(h/e&k) >0.5= evidence for a proposition that makes the proposition probably true

So, what exactly are you saying?

If there is evidence for Jesus in the 1st century, then it is NOT likely that Jesus existed?

And if there is No evidence for Jesus in the 1st century, then it is likely that Jesus existed?

Dogfish · 05-05-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Evidence, def.: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

And a lack of corroborated evidence for the existance of x would be considered evidence against x, would it not?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.