Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-22-2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

.

... I consider it demonstrated that all scholars either explicitly or (largely) implicitly take one of these positive or negative historicity hypothesis as provisionally true (re: Jesus and/or Paul) for their exposition. ...

No such thing has been demonstrated.

I am attempting here demonstrate this, with the proviso that, in line with all that I have awritten before, to be consistent, add the condition that if they do not take one or the other hypothesis as true, they attempt to examine and then weigh both the positive and the negative historicity hypothesis.

Quote:

Some scholars make the assumption that Jesus existed and go on from there;

This class of scholars demonstrate the claim.

Quote:

others do not make that assumption and examine whether someone like Jesus existed at the origins of Christianity.

What is meant by "someone like Jesus"? If you mean an historical person like an historical Jesus then the positive historicity hypothesis is implied, but if you mean a fictional historical person like Jesus then the negative historicity hypothesis has been implied. In either case the claim is demonstrated.

Quote:

Examining the evidence for the existence of someone like Jesus is very different from taking the hypothesis that he existed as provisionally true or false.

The examination of evidence is supposed to be unbiased. One core principle in the methodology of history is that any given source may be forged or corrupted. It therefore follows that one must explore both the positive and the negative historicity of whatever element of the evidence one is examining. Jesus is an element of the evidence. When one examines this element - the person Jesus - as with all others, one must allow both the positive and the negative potential in accordance with this core historical principle. If one fails to do so, then one is not doing history.

Quote:

For example, Apostate Abe does not take the existence of Jesus as provisionally true. He thinks that he has evaluated the evidence to reach the conclusion that a Jesus who shared some characteristics with the gospel Jesus existed and sparked the Christian religion. If you try to tell him that he has assumed the existence of a historical Jesus, he will deny that - except that he has you on ignore and will never see what you write.

There is little doubt that Apostate Abe does assume the positive historicity hypothesis (Jesus existed in history) as provisionally true for his purposes at the moment, as do many other people.

For a start, HTF can anyone base anything at all upon hypothetical conclusions in this field when there is so little hard evidence?

I can see why many people sit on the fence of the controversy and could not give a flying razoo as to the outcome of the question, or think it is not important, or unknowable, or never to be known, or irreverent, or etc etc etc.

I can also see why many people are exploring the negative historicity hypothesis "Jesus did not exist in history".

Core Principle of the Historical Method

For Christ's sake we are discussing history.

In principle the historical sources for Jesus may include both positive or negative evidence. Therefore it follows that one minimum requirement on the hypotheses which are to be formulated is the inclusion of both the positive and negative historicity hypothesis. What is so unreasonable about this claim?

"It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can;
it is perhaps because they can be useful to Him in this repsect
that He tolerates their existence."

~ Samuel Butler (1835-1902) Erewhon Revisited

Toto · 12-22-2011, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No such thing has been demonstrated.

I am attempting here demonstrate this, with the proviso that, in line with all that I have written before, to be consistent, add the condition that if they do not take one or the other hypothesis as true, they attempt to examine and then weigh both the positive and the negative historicity hypothesis.

You are making an absolutely trivial statement that does nothing to aid in historical analysis.

Quote:

...

What is meant by "someone like Jesus"? If you mean an historical person like an historical Jesus then the positive historicity hypothesis is implied, but if you mean a fictional historical person like Jesus then the negative historicity hypothesis has been implied. In either case the claim is demonstrated.

In neither case has the historian started with an assumption.

Quote:

The examination of evidence is supposed to be unbiased. One core principle in the methodology of history is that any given source may be forged or corrupted. It therefore follows that one must explore both the positive and the negative historicity of whatever element of the evidence one is examining. Jesus is an element of the evidence. When one examines this element - the person Jesus - as with all others, one must allow both the positive and the negative potential in accordance with this core historical principle. If one fails to do so, then one is not doing history.

Your invented term "negative historicity" does not add anything to the discussion.

Quote:

For example, Apostate Abe does not take the existence of Jesus as provisionally true. .

There is little doubt that Apostate Abe does assume the positive historicity hypothesis (Jesus existed in history) as provisionally true for his purposes at the moment, as do many other people.

I have just told you that I am sure Abe does not make that assumption. What is your evidence?

Quote:

For a start, HTF can anyone base anything at all upon hypothetical conclusions in this field when there is so little hard evidence?

This statement makes no sense. I am not claiming that anyone bases anything on hypothetical conclusions - you are.

Quote:

...

Core Principle of the Historical Method
...

In principle the historical sources for Jesus may include both positive or negative evidence. Therefore it follows that one minimum requirement on the hypotheses which are to be formulated is the inclusion of both the positive and negative historicity hypothesis. What is so unreasonable about this claim?

What is so unreasonable? Well it depends on jargon terms you have invented, that have uncertain meaning. And what does it explain or add?

Doug Shaver · 12-22-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That is not a qualification. It is an entailment.

Entailment

This seems to indicate that the meaningfully declarative sentence or truthbearer is "Paul existed", which has been my point here.

It may seem so to you.

mountainman · 12-23-2011, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Core Principle of the Historical Method
...

In principle the historical sources for Jesus may include both positive or negative evidence. Therefore it follows that one minimum requirement on the hypotheses which are to be formulated is the inclusion of both the positive and negative historicity hypothesis. What is so unreasonable about this claim?

What is so unreasonable? Well it depends on jargon terms you have invented, that have uncertain meaning.

Quote:

...
Your invented term "negative historicity" does not add anything to the discussion.

I have defined negative historicity as the historicity of negative evidence, and I have made several citations for the term negative evidence.

Quote:

And what does it explain or add?

In investigations that involve forgery and fabrication it is important to keep separate ledgers for positive and negative evidence. You must be aware that the primary example of negative evidence is represented by events which did not happen.

Toto · 12-23-2011, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

In investigations that involve forgery and fabrication it is important to keep separate ledgers for positive and negative evidence. You must be aware that the primary example of negative evidence is represented by events which did not happen.

Are you trying to say that a forgery, like the letters between Paul and Seneca, counts as evidence against the existence of Jesus?? How is that supposed to work?

mountainman · 12-23-2011, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

In investigations that involve forgery and fabrication it is important to keep separate ledgers for positive and negative evidence. You must be aware that the primary example of negative evidence is represented by events which did not happen.

Are you trying to say that a forgery, like the letters between Paul and Seneca, counts as evidence against the existence of Jesus?? How is that supposed to work?

No I am not saying that. I am saying it counts as negative evidence (as distinct from positive evidence) in the case of "christian origins". Here is a brief informative article on Facts and Negative Evidence

Quote:

This problem is relevant to the concept of evidence. The nonoccurence of events is said to provide negative evidence. Such evidence is used in inferential contexts to draw certain conclusions.

Consider the Sherlock Holmes’ mystery Silver Blaze. At night someone stole the horse Silver Blaze from the stable where he was kept. A watch dog and two grooms also lived in the stable. The grooms said they heard nothing during the night. Consider the following propositions:

•b: The dog is a watch dog that would bark if someone attempted to steal Silver Blaze, and this would wake the grooms and alert them of the intruder.
•e: The dog did nothing during the night.
•h: The person who stole Silver Blaze knew the dog well.

The probability of the hypothesis given the evidence and background information leads Holmes to conclude P(h|e & b) = High. The incident that allowed Holmes to conclude that h is likely was the non-occurrence of barking by the dog during the night. How does the state of affairs of non-barking (as an entity) make true (or probable) the hypothesis? If negative evidence is admissible as facts in the truth-maker sense where does this lead? Does the non-occurrence of my death (or bodily injury) while driving “make true” the proposition that {Driving is safe}? After all, the incident of non-occurrence of injury does increase the probability of the safety of driving. One problem is the scope of such commitments. Would all non-occurrence events equally “make true” propositions true? Inferentially speaking, would negative evidence, as “making true”, lead to the irrational assignment of probabilities in various hypotheses?

Toto · 12-23-2011, 01:34 AM

That article defines negative evidence as a lack of evidence where one would not expect silence. You are using the term differently, to refer to actual evidence that you don't like.

tanya · 12-23-2011, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

To take your example of 'Caesar': there were in fact many historical individuals referred to by the name 'Caesar'. It cannot simply be assumed that all references to 'Caesar' refer to the same individual: in fact, this is demonstrably false.
...
No, 'Julius Caesar' is not a sufficient specification: there was more than one historical individual referred to by the name 'Julius Caesar', and not all references to 'Julius Caesar' refer to the same individual. And 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

Codex Sinaiticus: Κατὰ Μάρκον 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ

(Even with the superscript bar across ιυ χυ, how is this a "sufficient specification"?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That article defines negative evidence as a lack of evidence where one would not expect silence.

Negative evidence: Philo of Alexandria

J-D · 12-23-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

To take your example of 'Caesar': there were in fact many historical individuals referred to by the name 'Caesar'. It cannot simply be assumed that all references to 'Caesar' refer to the same individual: in fact, this is demonstrably false.
...
No, 'Julius Caesar' is not a sufficient specification: there was more than one historical individual referred to by the name 'Julius Caesar', and not all references to 'Julius Caesar' refer to the same individual. And 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

Codex Sinaiticus: Κατὰ Μάρκον 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιυ χυ

(Even with the superscript bar across ιυ χυ, how is this a "sufficient specification"?)

I'm not sure whether you're posing this question to support my position, or to challenge it, or what. If you are under the impression that I regard quoting the line of Greek text you cite as providing a sufficient specification of what is meant by 'Jesus', then you are under a gross misapprehension: I think nothing of the kind. To the contrary, emphatically. But perhaps that's not what you meant. I'm not sure what you mean.

J-D · 12-23-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.... 'Jesus' is not a sufficient specification either, and you don't make it into one just by saying that it is.

If it is a sufficient specification for Herman Deterning, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, R Hoffman (of the - wait for it - 'Jesus' Project') and Arthur Drews to name a handful of academic scholars in this specific field, then it is a sufficient specification for my purposes here.

I don't think you can demonstrate that this is a "speculation" for most of these scholars.

We have already agreed that history is hypothetical and as such requires hypotheses and speculations to be formulated and tested. We are discussing the positive hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and its negative antithesis "Jesus did not exist in history". We have already seen specific statements cited in repect of the above scholars on either the hypothesis "Jesus existed in history" or "Jesus did not exist in history" or "Paul existed in history" or "Paul did not exist in history".

The hypothetical nature of Jesus remains even if we accept for one moment that entire class of apologetics (both modern and ancient) to whom (they have claimed) this same Jesus speaks directly. (Some consider Paul in this class)

As such I consider it demonstrated that all scholars either explicitly or (largely) implicitly take one of these posiive or negative historicity hypothesis as provisionally true (re: Jesus and/or Paul) for their exposition. There is no doubt that there are a great range of conclusions that are generated by provisionally assuming true either the positive or negative historicity hypothesis about Jesus, and this can be demonstrated in the following table:

Source: Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions

Note in the first place the positive and negative [historicity] column and its ability to calibrate the entire spread of opion:

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[-1 to -20 %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[-10 to -50 %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[-50 to-100 %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}[-]
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[-50 to-100 %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}No
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

With thanks to spin for starting this table.

An analysis which suggests that that table sets out different/contrasting assertions about the same Jesus is incorrect. It indicates varying assertions in which the term 'Jesus' is used, but with different meanings in different cases.

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

12-23-2011, 01:34 AM	#557
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That article defines negative evidence as a lack of evidence where one would not expect silence. You are using the term differently, to refer to actual evidence that you don't like.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.