FathomFFI

With deductive reasoning you will conclude that there is no other evidence that P52 belongs to any other ancient text other than the GOJ. We don't even need to default to adductive reasoning because all other known possibilities are eliminated. Yet, even if we default to abductive reasoning due to the unknown possibilities, we are still left with factual evidence which cannot be disputed by the unknown possibilities for the simple reason that the unknown possibilities are, of course, arguments from ignorance.

No matter how you examine it, all the evidence points to the GOJ existing in at least 120 AD, or to the extreme 180 AD.

Unless I'm missing something, I can't see where the math is wrong. If someone sees error in my logic I invite criticism to improve it. I am always open to improvements.


The reasoning demonstrates we don't need it.

Toto

Here is your logical error: GoJ may omit most of the synoptics, but that does not prove or even indicate as probable that the author of GoJ did not use the synoptics as a source for at least a few key facts, or share a common source with them. After all, all four gospels contain the magical baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Since, as rationalists, we have some confidence that there were no witnesses to this supernatural event, it seems likely that all four gospels are based on some common source. In addition, we do not have the original form of any of these gospels, and we have some good indication that as the gospels were copied, there was a tendency to conform the gospels to each other. So Jesus the Nazarene or the Nazirite could easily be turned into Jesus of Nazareth by later monks.

This is an abuse of the statistical method. You do not have 90% certainty that the original GoJ contained a reference to an actual city of Nazareth in the 2nd century, much less that it was not derived from the synoptics.

Even if that verse is not found in the synoptics, that does not imply that the author of John did not take the referenc to Nazareth from the synoptics. "Conclusive" is not a valid conclusion here. In addition, scientists usually require 95% correlation.

Toto

This is totally confused. Are you aware of the variations in the texts of the gospels and the difficulty of knowing how any of them actually read at some point in history?

And pointing out that there are other possibilities is not an argument from ignorance.

Wait a minute - you came up with 180 CE as a mid point - not an extreme.

Your logic is so erroneous that it is hard to know where to start. You start with some probabilities and suddenly proclaim absolute certainty.

You may in fact be right that Nazareth existed in the first century, but you haven't begun to prove it.

FathomFFI

But we are not speaking of the probability being restricted to a "few key facts" but instead to 90% of the text. When we see that 90% of the text is not taken from the synoptics, then we have 90% of the GOJ as proven as not orginating from the same source as the synoptics.

That is where the true probabilty is, and not with the other 10% to a "few key facts."

But the argument is not how much text is similar between the synoptics and the Johnanie, but how much is not similar. Since it's been proven that 90% of the text cannot be found in the synoptics, then it follows that 90% of the Johnanie does not come from the synoptics, and there is only 10% which shows a common source.


When there is no evidence, and only an argument from silence or an argument from ignorance to contest it, and no evidence that P52 belonged to any text other than the GOJ, then we are left with solid abductive reasoning to support the stats. We do not have to be conclusive, but only to demonstrate the most likley truth.

It is a matter of which argument has more merit according to the evidence.

You are merely citing a possibility with no supporting evidence. This is an argument from ignorance. Since you have no evidence, and the text of John 1.46 is self-evident, then we have 100% certainty at this point in time.

That means that my argument for conclusiveness is uncontested. Arguments from ignorance offer no evidence to contest.

Toto

I think you are confusing several issues. One is the similarity of the text. 90% dissimilarity indicates that the author of John did not slavishly copy text from the synoptics.

But you seem to admit that 10% of the text is the same, so you are prepared to admit that the author of John used the synoptics for some purpose. Therefore, you cannot exclude the possibility that Nazareth is among the ideas taken from the synoptics.

This seems so obvious, I cannot understand how you can conclude otherwise.


P52 undoubtedly belongs to the Gospel of John. That is not the issue.

First of all, we are ignorant of most of what happened in history. We can only make inferences based on what little evidence has survived.

You have set up a completely invalid argument. I can't even put it into logical form - you move from John is 90% independent of the synoptics to John is 100% independent and is therefore an independent source for the existence of Nazareth in the second century, and therefore Nazareth existed in the first century with 100% probability? None of this makes any sense.

In the first place, the mere mention of Nazareth in a religious document is not proof of its existence. In the second place, the mention of Nazareth in the 2nd century does not show that anyone thought it existed in the first century.

Could you possibly restate your argument in some sort of logical form?

FathomFFI

They are arguments from ignorance when no supporting evidence is supplied.

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

With no refuting evidence, then it is in fact an argument from ignorance.


That's exactly what I said I would do.

I'm willing to split the difference of the extreme. It's only fair.


I don't have to conclusively prove it, but to only demonstrate the most likley truth.

That's how arguments are won or lost most of the time.

FathomFFI

Agreed.

The possibility is not excluded, but since it lacks supporting evidence then it is an argument from ignorance.

The actual evidence indicates that since John 1.46 is not found in the synoptics, then that is the only evidence we actually have. We can postulate theories sure, but they must at least meet the minimal requirement of support to achieve credulity, otherwise can we say whatever we want and expect it to have merit?

We must deal with the facts to reach a conclusion, not with unsupported speculation.



You misunderstood me. I had quoted the statement regarding John 1.46, and placed the 100% certainty on that text only, not the GoJ in its entirety. You will notice that I had edited it to clarify the John 1.46 as what I was referring to after you went to respond, but before you actually posted your response. My apologies.

Firstly, It is indeed evidence to support its existence, particularily when it is supported by other evidence.

Secondly, evidence supporting the mentioning of Nazareth existing in the 2nd century sure beats the hell out of Jesusneverexisted.com's argument from silence that there is no evidence until the 4th century.


I feel it has been done sufficiently.

Adonael

If I may interpose,

Toto seems to be appealing to it's mere possibility; Toto does not seem to be proclaiming that it is true. Moreover, claiming something to be true without giving its evidence is not the fallacy of ignorance either. Rather,the appeal to ignorance fallacy is claiming something to be true because it cannot be or is not shown false

FathomFFI

It's more detailed than that.

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallac...%20ignorantiam

My whole point is that since we are dealing with subject matter which requires evidence, the argument from ignorance is invalid due to the fact that no evidence is being presented to support it.

It's a question of a burden of proof. Since arguments from silence are not evidence, then the burden of proof must be met to give them credulity.

I am not saying that arguments from silence or arguments from ignorance cannot be validated, but instead stating clearly that some evidence must be presented to validate them.

Jesusneverexisted.com is making a positive claim that Nazareth did not exist at the time of Jesus based solely on arguments from silence.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Again, it's a matter of a burden of proof.

Minimalist

Idiocy put forward by a shameless christian apologist named Kenneth Kitchen.

What he should have said is that absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence. It most assuredly is EVIDENCE.

Archaeology has searched in Jerusalem for 150 years and has failed to turn up a single shred of physical evidence for the capital of a great empire that was supposed to exist in the 10th century BC. They have found NOTHING.

That, my friend, is most assuredly EVIDENCE that the OT is full of Holy Shit. It is not "proof" because the next shovel in the ground might find something but right now it seems pretty clear that there was nothing but a small and insignificant village on the site in the 10-9th centuries. Certainly a scholar of Kitchen's standing (he is an Egyptologist) should understand the difference between evidence and proof in the scientific sense. The trouble with Kitchen is that when it comes to his own faith such nuances escape him.

The same is true of Nazareth. Jesuit "archaeologists" misdating pottery shards to make believe that their fairy tales are real does not cut it.

Check out Rene Salm's recent book.