Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-18-2008, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is a shocking attitude ("shocking" in a literal sense). In a society where disinformation has been the staple diet, lies, hype, bias, spin, being the common fare, a person can state in all innocence that "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". But this has been the case ever since text was used to move people. "Uncle Sam needs you!" to aid in the repression of some banana republic so its wealth can be fleeced. "Jews are christ killers" because they have lucrative financial dealings and we want to take advantage of them. "Woman was made from the rib of Adam" and so she is beholding to him.

People write text for self-aggrandizement, for group aggrandizement, to please patrons, to convince others, to inform others, to organize thoughts, too alienate people.

Text isn't evidence for anything until it can be shown to be evidence. To show its status, you need to be able to indicate when it was written -- which gives it the opportunity to represent what it was written about from direct knowledge --; you need to indicate where it was written; you need to deal with why it was written -- a harder concern, but just as necessary, because it will reflect on the ostensible content. You also need to consider if it was based on direct access to the purported information or whether it was mediated access through other sources.

The naivety level of "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise" is what allows media manipulation of unprepared populations for the aims of their governing powers.

You need to consider information as though you were going into a court of law, seeking a conviction based on it. You must be able to show its relevance or the court will reject its content without hearing it. Once you've validated your witness's testimony, ie turned it into evidence, then it can be evaluated. (The court is only an analogy to point out your responsibilities in prosecuting your case.)

You cannot seriously rely on simpleton claims such as "textual evidence is usually considered good evidence until shown otherwise". It allows you to assume most of the job you have to do and dismisses your results as unfounded.

spin

Did you read through my arguments, all of them? Here they are bundled together (click to the right for the next one):

http://www.opposingviews.com/argumen...jesus-movement

Yes, I'd read through this perhaps a day before posting. And here is a critique of it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

Even though I think the Christian faith is delusional, I think an apocalyptic prophet named Jesus existed in the first century Palestine who was the founder of the Jesus cult. That’s all he was and nothing more.

Statement of conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

I think pure historical studies cannot prove whether Jesus actually existed or not. That someone existed in the past doesn’t mean we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. That someone did not exist in past does not mean we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t.

While I think we can prove that many people of the ancient past existed, the same is not the case regarding the gospel figure Jesus. We don't have enough evidence to make any historical conclusions regarding Jesus. This means that this Jesus was not in any sense a historical figure. He may have existed. He may not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

I’ve read the relevant passages in Tacitus (64 AD),

Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

Pliny (112 AD), Suetonious (49 AD),

...as was Suetonius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

Rabbi Eliezer (post 70 AD), the Benediction Twelve (post 70 AD), Josephus (post 70 AD). I’ve read the Christian inscription in Pompeii , too (79 AD).

This last particular item has no primary source, ie any original doesn't exist. We have the claim of an inscription.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

I understand the debates about them. But even a cultic group tradition is based upon something. The majority scholarly consensus is the two-source theory of synoptic gospel tradition (Q and Mark) that predate the Gospels,...

(Umm, Mark is a gospel...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

...and that we have early creeds inside Paul's writings (I Cor. 8:6; 12:3; 15:3-4; Galatians 4:4-5; I Tim. 3:16)

Which recent scholars think that Paul wrote Timothy?

Also here, I have argued against the veracity of 1 Cor 15:3-11.

1 Cor 12:3 doesn't seem creedal in any sense.

1 Cor 8:6 is another great case of a Pauline passage (here about food offered to idols) waylaid, a cuckoo in the nest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

...that predate his letters.

In most of your examples I think the opposite is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

There is also a close connection between the New Testament era with the early church fathers like John the elder, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and others.

This is quite a leap. Irenaeus was writing circa 180 CE.

Polycarp is difficult to date, seeing as he was known from a historical indication as living around 160 CE. Ignatius is highly debatable for date and worth.

The first direct reference to gospel material we ahve is from so-called harmonized refrences in Justin, circa 160 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

We have to date these texts, no doubt, and some of them may indeed be late, and some were forgeries. But they still offer some kind of early testimony to the historicity of a man called Jesus. I just don’t see why we must discount the various independent writers of the New Testament itself on the historicity of Jesus.

Different manifestations of a tradition do not equate to independent writers. You assume what you need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

Why, for instance, should we not believe anything at all in the New Testament unless there is independent confirmation from outside sources?

While I may agree with this statement I can't see how it follows from much you've said b efore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon W. Loftus

I could be wrong. But here is why I think I’m right. Passionate cult-like religious groups are almost always started by a cultic charismatic figure especially a doomsday prophet, not an author, and not a committee. It’s almost always a single charismatic leader that gathers passionate religious people together. So who is the most likely candidate for starting the Jesus cult? Jesus himself is, although Paul certainly was the man most responsible for spreading what he believed about his story. And even though Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:19), his testimony is that there were already believers whom he was persecuting in Palestine in the first century. So by Paul's own testimony he was not that charismatic person.

Yet Paul didn't need to have had any direct interaction with a Jesus to go out and start churches. It was sufficient that he had a revelation of ideas not received from humans, not taught to him by humans. He had a revelation as he tells us in Gal 1:11-12 and went on to start several communities of Jesus believers. I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Have you read through the other thread here on textual evidence?

Did you actually read what I wrote in the post you are responding to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

And have you read agnostic Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet on the New Millennium?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

What I have argued for stands squarely within the ovewhelming consensus of peer-reviewed scholars.

Congratulations, but pardon me if I'm not impressed with people who don't really show any but the most rudimentary knowledge of historiography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

We could all be wrong. It's possible that there never was a historical Jesus. I grant that.

While that's noble, the same cuts the other way. There is simply not enough evidence to enter into the field of history over the issue. This doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist -- we both accept that possibility --, but there is no historical evidence on the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

When it comes to textual evidence found in the past it is considered precious to historians.

Did you honestly read what you are responding to from me? Historians have a dialectic relationship with texts. It's not a matter of text being some hallowed source of information. It is that what is in the text has to be teased out to see its worth before it can be used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

There is much more to be said about this evidence than a line or two that I wrote. And there is much I can agree with you about. We must verify that evidence, date it, and so forth.

That "so forth" is much of our contention. Text is not evidence per se. And this you don't seem to have indicated an understanding for. Its content has to be shown to be relevant to the period before it can even be considered evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I think you are reading into my claim much more than I mean by it, and unjustifiably so.

One can only go by what you actually say, not by what you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

In any case, first read through my argument and come back here if you want to dispute what I said. I learn from every honest critic.

Hmmm. :constern01:

spin

aa5874 · 12-18-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

How many people would argue that the text of "Tom Sawyer" is evidence of a historical Aunt Polly? The intent of the author isn't just an aside, it's EVERYTHING.

Agreed. This is standard hermeneutics. It seems as though the intent of the NT writers and the way they were interpreted by the early church was that they were describing the acts of a real person. Just look at Luke's prologue and I John.

Homer's Achilles is described as a real person that was on earth. Why is Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, so easily declared to be mythical while Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, is thought by some to have an historical core?

If we ignore Homer's description of Achilles, then it can be claimed that Achilles has an historical core.

Quote:

You are now left on the defensive trying to argue that the authors, though well intentioned, were simply wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W Loftus

They were wrong just like Benny Hinn's followers are wrong when they claim he does miracles. But that no more makes Hinn a mythical being than Jesus. Sure we can verify Hinn's existence. But what if we backed up his ministry to the first century CE? I just don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm willing to do the hard work of distinguishing truth from fiction rather than either accepting it all (like Holding) or rejecting it all (like Zindler).

Why do you think or presuppose that there is a real baby in the water?

You cannot compare the information of Jesus of the NT with Benny Hinn.

Benny Hinn is alive today.

I suggest you use Achilles or other entities described similarly to Jesus of the NT where there are no confirmed or credible sources to support their existence.

Now, would you accept an author as credible who wrote a book about Benny Hinn where everything that was written him was found to be false? Would you think the parts of the book that you could not verify about Benny Hinn would be true just because they appeared plausible?

So, if an author gives the incorrect date of birth of Hinn, where he was born, the incorrect names of parents, false statements about his brothers and sisters, where he went to school, where he lived as a child, and where he worked, would you think that if the author claimed Benny Hinn shaved on the 15th of March 2008, that such information is likely to be true?

The fact is that the writers of the Jesus stories are not credible, the things that can be tested in their Jesus stories all turned out to be false or unlikely to have occurred.

John W. Loftus · 12-18-2008, 05:33 AM

So, several of you are sure that Jesus never existed? Okay, I guess. It's easy to be a skeptic, isn't it? You may be correct. I don't doubt this. But deal with all of my argument, not just bits and pieces of it. There is no single piece of evidence that supports the view that Jesus was a historical person. You would clearly not do this in any other historical study or you could end up denying the Holocaust, for that’s the same method the deniers use to deny it happened. Each single piece of evidence does not bear the weight of the whole story so they doubt each one on its own terms and conclude it never happened. But that’s not how historical studies should be done. It’s the convergence of evidence.

I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me. One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true. Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny). Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

Again, there is much more to be said.

Cheers.

dog-on · 12-18-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

So, several of you are sure that Jesus never existed? Okay, I guess. It's easy to be a skeptic, isn't it? You may be correct. I don't doubt this. But deal with all of my argument, not just bits and pieces of it. There is no single piece of evidence that supports the view that Jesus was a historical person. You would clearly not do this in any other historical study or you could end up denying the Holocaust, for that’s the same method the deniers use to deny it happened. Each single piece of evidence does not bear the weight of the whole story so they doubt each one on its own terms and conclude it never happened. But that’s not how historical studies should be done. It’s the convergence of evidence.

I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me. One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true. Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny). Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

Again, there is much more to be said.

Cheers.

Sure, as in 100%? Of course not.

The textual tradition says that Paul is earliest. Paul knows Jesus through divine revelation.

That is the prima facie evidence that Jesus is a fiction/myth.

Now if you want to provide some physical evidence to show that Paul is mistaken or can show that NT scholarship, itself, is mistaken regarding Paul's place in it's textual tradition, please do so.

Until then, based on what we have, myth seems to fit the prima facie evidence the best.

mountainman · 12-18-2008, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it.

Dear John,

We have 2 C14 citations - gJudas at 290 CE and gThomas (NHC) at 348 CE (both plus or minus 60 years). How does the C14 confirmation sit with your theory of christian origins?

Quote:

but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

You may, thousand wouldn't. Who is to say who's right and wrong aside from the C14?

Best wishes,

Pete

John W. Loftus · 12-18-2008, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The textual tradition says that Paul is earliest. Paul knows Jesus through divine revelation.

That is the prima facie evidence that Jesus is a fiction/myth.

Now if you want to provide some physical evidence to show that Paul is mistaken or can show that NT scholarship, itself, is mistaken regarding Paul's place in it's textual tradition, please do so.

Until then, based on what we have, myth seems to fit the prima facie evidence the best.

Paul's claim in Galatians and Acts is that he met with the Apostle Peter and the Jerusalem church leaders. If he had a different mythical view of Jesus than they did it would surface in fifteen days of conversations.

The textual evidence is actually strong, I think, that there was a doomsday prophet who originated the Jesus cult named Jesus. It fits with the over-all expectations of a Messiah of that era, too.

spin · 12-18-2008, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

So, several of you are sure that Jesus never existed? Okay, I guess. It's easy to be a skeptic, isn't it?

Without skepticism you cannot do the business of history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

You may be correct. I don't doubt this. But deal with all of my argument, not just bits and pieces of it. There is no single piece of evidence that supports the view that Jesus was a historical person. You would clearly not do this in any other historical study or you could end up denying the Holocaust, for that’s the same method the deniers use to deny it happened.

Low shot. This debases any credibility you would like to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Each single piece of evidence does not bear the weight of the whole story so they doubt each one on its own terms and conclude it never happened. But that’s not how historical studies should be done. It’s the convergence of evidence.

How do you distinguish between a reality indicated by this "convergence of evidence" and a non-reality indicated by such a "convergence of evidence"?

Do you think for some reason that you alone here have looked at that which you call a "convergence of evidence"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me.

You need to be specific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you can repeat this without any further reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny).

Now this is just plain wrong. The burden of proof is always on the one who states a substantive case. The first thing you have to do is show that you have evidence. Why are you so unwilling to do so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt.

With this I guess you realize that you don't have a case to make.

spin

dog-on · 12-18-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The textual tradition says that Paul is earliest. Paul knows Jesus through divine revelation.

That is the prima facie evidence that Jesus is a fiction/myth.

Now if you want to provide some physical evidence to show that Paul is mistaken or can show that NT scholarship, itself, is mistaken regarding Paul's place in it's textual tradition, please do so.

Until then, based on what we have, myth seems to fit the prima facie evidence the best.

Paul's claim in Galatians and Acts is that he met with the Apostle Peter and the Jerusalem church leaders. If he had a different mythical view of Jesus than they did it would surface in fifteen days of conversations.

The textual evidence is actually strong, I think, that there was a doomsday prophet who originated the Jesus cult named Jesus.

Paul didn't write Acts, as far as I am aware.

I also believe that there are quite a few interpolations in Galatians, Gal 1:18-24 is one of those places. I believe that the first visit to Jerusalem is a post-Acts, contra-Marcion interpolation.

You also assume that Paul believed that these other so called pillars met Jesus in a different way then Paul did. I don't see that specified anywhere in Paul.

The textual evidence for a physical Jesus, in Paul, seems fairly weak.

John W. Loftus · 12-18-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Now this is just plain wrong. The burden of proof is always on the one who states a substantive case. The first thing you have to do is show that you have evidence. Why are you so unwilling to do so?
spin

Not so, if you are actually reading what I write. There is plenty of textual evidence. I've stated my case in the debate and given reasons for it. I stand with the overwhelming peer-reviewed historians and scholars on this issue. You have no evidence against what I argue for, except silence (which, granted, can be telling). If you do, what is it? You have no theory of how the Jesus cult originated if it wasn't originated by a real doomsday prophet named Jesus.

And I did not accuse you of being a Holocaust denier; not at all. I said the method you use is fairly much the same. I think anyone who exhibits this much skepticism about documents of the past can deny almost anything in history, which makes me suspicious of that method. With that same method you can deny Paul's existence and Peter and John and the disciples too. I'm just sorry but I'm not that skeptical. I have a whole chapter about the methods of history in my book and how it applies to the Christian claims.

dog-on · 12-18-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Not so, if you are actually reading what I write. There is plenty of textual evidence. I've stated my case in the debate and given reasons for it. I stand with the overwhelming peer-reviewed historians and scholars on this issue. You have no evidence against what I argue for, except silence (which, granted, can be telling). If you do, what is it? You have no theory of how the Jesus cult originated if it wasn't originated by a real doomsday prophet named Jesus.

How about, Paul originated the cult.

This fits all the evidence just fine.

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

12-18-2008, 05:33 AM	#23
John W. Loftus Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 126	So, several of you are sure that Jesus never existed? Okay, I guess. It's easy to be a skeptic, isn't it? You may be correct. I don't doubt this. But deal with all of my argument, not just bits and pieces of it. There is no single piece of evidence that supports the view that Jesus was a historical person. You would clearly not do this in any other historical study or you could end up denying the Holocaust, for that’s the same method the deniers use to deny it happened. Each single piece of evidence does not bear the weight of the whole story so they doubt each one on its own terms and conclude it never happened. But that’s not how historical studies should be done. It’s the convergence of evidence. I do not hope to convince you. And poking holes in my argument doesn't show you are correct until you provide a better theory with fewer holes and more evidence for it than I do. The evidence you have seems to be an argument from silence to me. One can be skeptical of almost ANY claim in the past. Since this is the is the case one must not be so skeptical but instead treat textual evidence as prima facia true. Which means the burden of proof is on the person who denies the text (leaving aside miraculous claims which we can easily deny). Sure we must date the text, and seek to confirm it, but in the absence of independent coroboration we must give it the benefit of the doubt. Again, there is much more to be said. Cheers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.