Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-24-2011, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

We start with the general claim that any given manuscript from antiquity must have had an author, in exactly the same general manner that we have discussed the Pauline letters.

I don't have a problem with that, subject to the qualification that by 'an author' (itself, like all expressions of the form 'an X' or 'a Y', potentially ambiguous) what is meant is 'at least one author' (multiple authorship being a common enough phenomenon).

The inclusion of the qualification 'from antiquity' is unnecessary (since the same is true of all manuscripts from all periods) but does no harm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The general principle (which you yourself have pointed out quite clearly) is that one of the hypotheses which may be drawn from historical authorship scenario, is that the author of a manuscript (e.g. letter) may be considered to be a real historical person.

I don't know why you call it a 'hypothesis'. If you want to leave open the possibility that there might be a manuscript without any author, I would like to know why. Do you seriously consider that to be a possibility?

I gave two or three counter examples earlier (e.g. computer software).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Among the evidence for the existence of Jesus is that tendered in the 4th century by the church historian Eusebius, who asserts in his history that he had found "in the archives" a letter authored by Jesus and sent to King Agbar of Edessa.

If we provisionally accept this evidence as evidence for the existence of an historical author called Jesus in the same manner that that we may do for Paul,

If we do that, then we are making a mistake. The text known as 'the letter to Abgar' must have been composed by somebody, but so far I have seen no reason to suppose that the name of that author was 'Jesus'.

The evidence discloses that the church historian Eusebius makes this assertion.

Quote:

On this point, I have seen no reason to accept Eusebius's say-so, incorrect attributions of authorship being common enough, and no evidence having been presented to justify accepting an attribution by Eusebius in this instance.

None of this alters the factual nature of the evidence. There is a claim that Jesus was the author of a letter in our possession. The author was not claimed to be Alexander the great, but Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

then we have uniquely specified a hypothetically historical figure called Jesus.

To adopt as our definition of 'Jesus' the specification 'the author of the letter to Abgar' strikes me as aberrant. It's quite clearly not what most people ever mean by 'Jesus', since most people have never even heard of 'the letter to Abgar', and if we need a term to refer to the author of the letter to Abgar, it seems clearer to me simply to use that description.

Also, unless you are going to insist that it's possible for a text to exist without an author, we know that there was an author of 'the letter to Abgar'. The authorship of that text is a reasonable subject of historical inquiry for those who may be interested (it doesn't much interest me), but the serious historical question about the authorship is not 'did the author really exist?'

The question concerning historical existence cannot be omitted from the investigation. Hypotheses about historical existence or otherwise must be provisionally entertained.

J-D · 12-24-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

References to a person, historical or otherwise, called "jesus" occurs 983 times in 942 verses in the KJV according the Blueletter Bible
Most analysts consider that these 983 references to Jesus are 983 references to the one Jesus, not 983 references to 983 different Jesi. When Eusebius named Jesus as the author of the Agbar Letter, he was referring to the same Jesus he had earlier made reference to in his history.

Jesi? What the hell are Jesi? Can you try to stick to one language at a time, please?

If you want to stipulate that you are using the term 'Jesus' to mean an individual of whom every one of those references in the New Testament is a true statement, and stick to that definition, then, necessarily, any reason to reject the truth of any one of those statements is also a reason to reject the view that there was a 'Jesus' as so defined.

These 983 stubs of reference still remain in the evidence, and they all point to one figure who either existed in history or did not.

It is not possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. That makes no sense. In any case, whether they all point to the same figure or not is an open question. It is precisely one of the points in dispute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

But it's clear to me that many people use the term differently, in such a way that rejection of some of those statements is compatible with continuing to assert the existence of a 'Jesus'.

One reason for this is that many people simply assume Jesus must have been an historical figure, and continue to assert this hypothesis until it is disproven.

That may be one of the reasons or it may not--it's unlikely to be the only reason. But it doesn't matter what the reason is. The fact remains, as is evident even from the tabulation you yourself refer to, that different people mean different things by the word 'Jesus', and there's no progress to be made in the discussion without being clear about how the word is being used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Some people may perhaps find it instructive to compare with another example, Alexander the Great. In the case of Alexander the Great, as I understand it, there is a significant amount of information about Alexander the Great which is accepted by historians as established historical fact: for example, that he was the acknowledged heir apparent to the throne of Philip II of Macedon and served as an officer in his army and as regent during some of his absences from the kingdom; that he succeeded to the throne on Philip's death, suppressed anti-Macedonian Greek risings, and was recognised as leader of a Greek alliance for the invasion of the Persian Empire; that he defeated the armies of the Persian Empire in a series of battles and claimed to succeed the Achaemenid dynasty as King of Kings; that he died at Babylon on a date which according to modern calendrical conventions fell in the year designated 323 BCE. If these and other statements are accepted as established historical facts, they form a description which can be used as a definition of what is meant by 'Alexander the Great', a description which one and only one historical figure matches. Given that definition, it becomes possible to say meaningfully that other recorded statements whose accuracy is not equally accepted are nevertheless statements about 'Alexander the Great', as so defined, and to discuss whether they are true of him. Given that definition, for example, it is meaningful to say it is to him that allegations of death by poisoning refer, whether they are true or not (and therefore to discuss whether they might be true), and likewise meaningful to say that legends of divine or magical paternity refer to him, even though (if we adhere to naturalism) they can't be true.

But in the context of a discussion where the accuracy of every single recorded statement naming 'Alexander the Great' was disputed, that would no longer be the case. The supernatural legends about Alexander the Great can legitimately be described as being about him and also as being false about him only on the basis of consensus about the truth of a core of statements about him which uniquely identify him.

The hypothesis "Alexander the Great existed in history" and the hypothesis "Alexander the Great did not exist in history" are thus both entertainable according to your above scenarios.

No, that is not so, and the point of the example is exactly to show how that is not so. It is self-contradictory to say that Alexander the Great was the acknowledged heir apparent to the throne of Philip II of Macedon and served as an officer in his army and as regent during some of his absences from the kingdom; that he succeeded to the throne on Philip's death, suppressed anti-Macedonian Greek risings, and was recognised as leader of a Greek alliance for the invasion of the Persian Empire; that he defeated the armies of the Persian Empire in a series of battles and claimed to succeed the Achaemenid dynasty as King of Kings; that he died at Babylon on a date which according to modern calendrical conventions fell in the year designated 323 BCE; AND that he did not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Ditto for Jesus.

There is no relevant parallel between a case where there is an undisputed core of established historical fact sufficient to define the identity referred to by a term, and a case where there is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Now in this discussion, as far as I know, there are no statements about 'Jesus' for which there is no challenge to their historical truth. In the context of a discussion like that, there is not a sufficient agreed description to provide a definition for what the term 'Jesus' means, and that means that any questions which are framed as if 'Jesus' is a meaningful term suffer referential failure and so cannot be meaningfully answered.

In the case that we are assuming as provisionally true the hypothesis that Jesus existed there is not necessarily any referential failure between the hypothetical existence of Jesus and the 983 references which provide the description of Jesus in the NT. (We can add more refences from the "Fathers").

In the case that we are assuming as provisionally true the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist in history, there is also not necessarily any referential failure because we may be seeking to explain the 983 NT references and the "Church Fathers xxxx references" on the basis that they are at least in part if not in whole negative evidence - events which did not happen in history, and people who did not exist in history.

You are still making the same statement of the position that you have made before, and it's still the case that your statement of the position does not have a sufficiently clear meaning because you have still not made a clear statement of what meaning you are assigning to the term 'Jesus'. Your statements are neither true nor false but meaningless, for the reasons I have just explained.

mountainman · 12-25-2011, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

References to a person, historical or otherwise, called "jesus" occurs 983 times in 942 verses in the KJV according the Blueletter Bible
Most analysts consider that these 983 references to Jesus are 983 references to the one Jesus, not 983 references to 983 different Jesi. When Eusebius named Jesus as the author of the Agbar Letter, he was referring to the same Jesus he had earlier made reference to in his history.

Jesi? What the hell are Jesi? Can you try to stick to one language at a time, please?

If you want to stipulate that you are using the term 'Jesus' to mean an individual of whom every one of those references in the New Testament is a true statement, and stick to that definition, then, necessarily, any reason to reject the truth of any one of those statements is also a reason to reject the view that there was a 'Jesus' as so defined.

These 983 stubs of reference still remain in the evidence, and they all point to one figure who either existed in history or did not.

It is not possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. That makes no sense.

Let's supposing Bilbo Baggins is mentioned 983 times in "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". It is thus quite possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. What's your problem?

mountainman · 12-25-2011, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis "Alexander the Great existed in history" and the hypothesis "Alexander the Great did not exist in history" are thus both entertainable according to your above scenarios.

No, that is not so, and the point of the example is exactly to show how that is not so.

It is self-contradictory to say that Alexander the Great was the acknowledged heir apparent to the throne of Philip II of Macedon and served as an officer in his army and as regent during some of his absences from the kingdom; that he succeeded to the throne on Philip's death, suppressed anti-Macedonian Greek risings, and was recognised as leader of a Greek alliance for the invasion of the Persian Empire; that he defeated the armies of the Persian Empire in a series of battles and claimed to succeed the Achaemenid dynasty as King of Kings; that he died at Babylon on a date which according to modern calendrical conventions fell in the year designated 323 BCE; AND that he did not exist.

It is not self-contradictory to say that Alexander the Great was not the acknowledged heir apparent to the throne of Philip II of Macedon and did not serve as an officer in his army and as regent during some of his absences from the kingdom; that he did not succeed to the throne on Philip's death, did not suppress anti-Macedonian Greek risings, and was not recognised as leader of a Greek alliance for the invasion of the Persian Empire; that he did not defeat the armies of the Persian Empire in a series of battles and did not claim to succeed the Achaemenid dynasty as King of Kings; that he did not die at Babylon on a date which according to modern calendrical conventions fell in the year designated 323 BCE; AND that he did not exist.

What's your next excuse? The positive and negative historicity hypotheses are a direct consequence of one of the core principles of the historical method: namely that any given source may be corrupt.

Quote:

.......

Your statements are neither true nor false but meaningless, for the reasons I have just explained.

The reason your above statement is self-contradictory was because you failed to pay attention to the historicity of the detailed items supporting the core series of evidentiary items surrounding the hypothetically non existent historical figure.

J-D · 12-25-2011, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

We start with the general claim that any given manuscript from antiquity must have had an author, in exactly the same general manner that we have discussed the Pauline letters.

I don't have a problem with that, subject to the qualification that by 'an author' (itself, like all expressions of the form 'an X' or 'a Y', potentially ambiguous) what is meant is 'at least one author' (multiple authorship being a common enough phenomenon).

The inclusion of the qualification 'from antiquity' is unnecessary (since the same is true of all manuscripts from all periods) but does no harm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The general principle (which you yourself have pointed out quite clearly) is that one of the hypotheses which may be drawn from historical authorship scenario, is that the author of a manuscript (e.g. letter) may be considered to be a real historical person.

I don't know why you call it a 'hypothesis'. If you want to leave open the possibility that there might be a manuscript without any author, I would like to know why. Do you seriously consider that to be a possibility?

I gave two or three counter examples earlier (e.g. computer software).

You suggested two possibilities: a manuscript produced by a monkey operating a typewriter, and a manuscript produced by a computer. Even if these can be considered manuscripts without authors, are you seriously suggesting that either of these is a possibility to be entertained in the case of the so-called 'letter to Abgar'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Among the evidence for the existence of Jesus is that tendered in the 4th century by the church historian Eusebius, who asserts in his history that he had found "in the archives" a letter authored by Jesus and sent to King Agbar of Edessa.

If we provisionally accept this evidence as evidence for the existence of an historical author called Jesus in the same manner that that we may do for Paul,

If we do that, then we are making a mistake. The text known as 'the letter to Abgar' must have been composed by somebody, but so far I have seen no reason to suppose that the name of that author was 'Jesus'.

The evidence discloses that the church historian Eusebius makes this assertion.

Quote:

On this point, I have seen no reason to accept Eusebius's say-so, incorrect attributions of authorship being common enough, and no evidence having been presented to justify accepting an attribution by Eusebius in this instance.

None of this alters the factual nature of the evidence. There is a claim that Jesus was the author of a letter in our possession. The author was not claimed to be Alexander the great, but Jesus.

I am aware that Eusebius made that claim. My point is that I see no reason to accept Eusebius's claim. Do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

then we have uniquely specified a hypothetically historical figure called Jesus.

To adopt as our definition of 'Jesus' the specification 'the author of the letter to Abgar' strikes me as aberrant. It's quite clearly not what most people ever mean by 'Jesus', since most people have never even heard of 'the letter to Abgar', and if we need a term to refer to the author of the letter to Abgar, it seems clearer to me simply to use that description.

Also, unless you are going to insist that it's possible for a text to exist without an author, we know that there was an author of 'the letter to Abgar'. The authorship of that text is a reasonable subject of historical inquiry for those who may be interested (it doesn't much interest me), but the serious historical question about the authorship is not 'did the author really exist?'

The question concerning historical existence cannot be omitted from the investigation.

Yes, it can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hypotheses about historical existence or otherwise must be provisionally entertained.

Not in this particular case.

Any suggestion, statement, hypothesis, conclusion, or guess of the form 'X was the author of "the letter to Abgar" and X did not exist' is self-contradictory, and can therefore be excluded from consideration.

J-D · 12-25-2011, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

References to a person, historical or otherwise, called "jesus" occurs 983 times in 942 verses in the KJV according the Blueletter Bible
Most analysts consider that these 983 references to Jesus are 983 references to the one Jesus, not 983 references to 983 different Jesi. When Eusebius named Jesus as the author of the Agbar Letter, he was referring to the same Jesus he had earlier made reference to in his history.

Jesi? What the hell are Jesi? Can you try to stick to one language at a time, please?

If you want to stipulate that you are using the term 'Jesus' to mean an individual of whom every one of those references in the New Testament is a true statement, and stick to that definition, then, necessarily, any reason to reject the truth of any one of those statements is also a reason to reject the view that there was a 'Jesus' as so defined.

These 983 stubs of reference still remain in the evidence, and they all point to one figure who either existed in history or did not.

It is not possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. That makes no sense.

Let's supposing Bilbo Baggins is mentioned 983 times in "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". It is thus quite possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. What's your problem?

The statements made in The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings using the name 'Bilbo Baggins' provide a description which can be used as a definition of what is meant by the term 'Bilbo Baggins'. However, there is not and never has been a real individual matching that description, and therefore the statements using the name 'Bilbo Baggins' do not refer to any such individual (because there isn't one).

(On the other hand, another possible description which can be used to define 'Bilbo Baggins' might be something like 'a Scottish pop band formed in 1972 which released its first single, "Saturday Night", in 1974'. There was and is a real entity matching that description, and so it is possible for some statements using the name 'Bilbo Baggins' to refer to it.)

J-D · 12-25-2011, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis "Alexander the Great existed in history" and the hypothesis "Alexander the Great did not exist in history" are thus both entertainable according to your above scenarios.

No, that is not so, and the point of the example is exactly to show how that is not so.

It is self-contradictory to say that Alexander the Great was the acknowledged heir apparent to the throne of Philip II of Macedon and served as an officer in his army and as regent during some of his absences from the kingdom; that he succeeded to the throne on Philip's death, suppressed anti-Macedonian Greek risings, and was recognised as leader of a Greek alliance for the invasion of the Persian Empire; that he defeated the armies of the Persian Empire in a series of battles and claimed to succeed the Achaemenid dynasty as King of Kings; that he died at Babylon on a date which according to modern calendrical conventions fell in the year designated 323 BCE; AND that he did not exist.

It is not self-contradictory to say that Alexander the Great was not the acknowledged heir apparent to the throne of Philip II of Macedon and did not serve as an officer in his army and as regent during some of his absences from the kingdom; that he did not succeed to the throne on Philip's death, did not suppress anti-Macedonian Greek risings, and was not recognised as leader of a Greek alliance for the invasion of the Persian Empire; that he did not defeat the armies of the Persian Empire in a series of battles and did not claim to succeed the Achaemenid dynasty as King of Kings; that he did not die at Babylon on a date which according to modern calendrical conventions fell in the year designated 323 BCE; AND that he did not exist.

That (compound) statement would have no clear meaning without a definition of what was meant, in that statement, by 'Alexander the Great'. It is meaningless to say 'Alexander the Great did not exist' in the absence of a clear definition of what is meant by 'Alexander the Great'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What's your next excuse?

What's yours?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The positive and negative historicity hypotheses are a direct consequence of one of the core principles of the historical method: namely that any given source may be corrupt.

No, they aren't, and you don't make that be the case simply by repeating it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

.......

Your statements are neither true nor false but meaningless, for the reasons I have just explained.

The reason your above statement is self-contradictory was because you failed to pay attention to the historicity of the detailed items supporting the core series of evidentiary items surrounding the hypothetically non existent historical figure.

No, any statement of similar form would be self-contradictory. It is always self-contradictory to say anything like 'X did this, that, and the other, and X never existed'. Any statement like 'X did this or that' presupposed that X existed: how otherwise could X have done anything?

mountainman · 12-25-2011, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Among the evidence for the existence of Jesus is that tendered in the 4th century by the church historian Eusebius, who asserts in his history that he had found "in the archives" a letter authored by Jesus and sent to King Agbar of Edessa.

If we provisionally accept this evidence as evidence for the existence of an historical author called Jesus in the same manner that that we may do for Paul,

If we do that, then we are making a mistake. The text known as 'the letter to Abgar' must have been composed by somebody, but so far I have seen no reason to suppose that the name of that author was 'Jesus'.

The evidence discloses that the church historian Eusebius makes this assertion.

Quote:

On this point, I have seen no reason to accept Eusebius's say-so, incorrect attributions of authorship being common enough, and no evidence having been presented to justify accepting an attribution by Eusebius in this instance.

None of this alters the factual nature of the evidence. There is a claim that Jesus was the author of a letter in our possession. The author was not claimed to be Alexander the great, but Jesus.

I am aware that Eusebius made that claim. My point is that I see no reason to accept Eusebius's claim. Do you?

We may both see no reason to accept the claim as positive evidence, however OTOH I see reason to accept the claim as negative evidence. This is where we differ.

mountainman · 12-25-2011, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

References to a person, historical or otherwise, called "jesus" occurs 983 times in 942 verses in the KJV according the Blueletter Bible
Most analysts consider that these 983 references to Jesus are 983 references to the one Jesus, not 983 references to 983 different Jesi. When Eusebius named Jesus as the author of the Agbar Letter, he was referring to the same Jesus he had earlier made reference to in his history.

Jesi? What the hell are Jesi? Can you try to stick to one language at a time, please?

If you want to stipulate that you are using the term 'Jesus' to mean an individual of whom every one of those references in the New Testament is a true statement, and stick to that definition, then, necessarily, any reason to reject the truth of any one of those statements is also a reason to reject the view that there was a 'Jesus' as so defined.

These 983 stubs of reference still remain in the evidence, and they all point to one figure who either existed in history or did not.

It is not possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. That makes no sense.

Let's supposing Bilbo Baggins is mentioned 983 times in "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". It is thus quite possible for it to be correct that they all point to one who figure who did not exist. What's your problem?

The statements made in The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings using the name 'Bilbo Baggins' provide a description which can be used as a definition of what is meant by the term 'Bilbo Baggins'. However, there is not and never has been a real individual matching that description, and therefore the statements using the name 'Bilbo Baggins' do not refer to any such individual (because there isn't one).

Do you not therefore subscribe to the hypothesis that Bilbo Baggins was not an historical figure?

Doug Shaver · 12-25-2011, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Most analysts consider that these 983 references to Jesus are 983 references to the one Jesus, not 983 references to 983 different Jesi.

If you think "Jesi" is the, or even a, correct plural of "Jesus," why should anybody take anything you say seriously?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.