mountainman

It should be quite obvious to everyone that those who are not satisfied that the TF is a forgery are not going to make that statement, but instead will state that "Josephus does mention Jesus", which is obviously a statement of positive evidence.

However it should also be quite obvious to everyone that those who make the statement of negative evidence "Josephus does not mention Jesus" are those who have already been satisfied that the TF is a forgery. For this class of analysts forgery and negative evidence appear equivalent, which is the argument being defended here.

J-D

Even IF your analysis of this particular case is correct, it does not establish any general equivalence between forgery and 'negative evidence'.

mountainman

Can you refute the general equivalence between a forgery and 'negative evidence' by providing a counter example? (I am aware that an inability to do so does not necessarily establish the truth of the general equivalence)


Back to the birth certificate

Say one hundred people provide their birth certificates and in all cases but one (person X) a panel of experts agreed that these birth certificates were authentic, but in the case of one person X, some of the experts (but not all) agreed that the birth certificate was a forgery and had been fabricated. It could be said by some of the experts (but not all) that "Person X did not provide an authentic birth certificate."

J-D

Easily. Any forgery trial offers such a counterexample, because in forgery trials forged documents are treated as positive evidence of guilt.Well, yes. But so what?

mountainman

Get real J-D ... the field in question is history and not law.

Toto

Here's an example. There is a Prayer Book attributed to George Washington. Experts agree that it is not George Washington's, and may be a forgery. This is not negative evidence of George Washington, or anything about George Washington.

J-D

No, you get real. You state clearly the definition of 'negative evidence' you want to discuss, and then stick to that one definition. The confusion here results from your obstinate refusal to do that. This has been pointed out already.

Doug Shaver

So far as I am aware, that class has only one member.

mountainman

For the sake of the example and argument let's say its a forgery that was designed to be sold as an authentic hand-written book by GW. As such it's original purpose was to represent positive (historical) evidence in respect of GW, and it may have been accepted as claimed for some time.

For the sake of the argument let's say there is no other evidence for the existence of GW. (Of course there is plenty of other evidence, but let's for the moment focus on the claimed Prayer Book.).

When the Prayer Book is identified as a forgery it ceases to become positive evidence in support of the claim for the existence of GW. We now have a situation where we have no positive evidence for the existence of GW. IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not claiming this proves or disproves the existence of GW, I am just listing the positive evidence. We have none in this scenario.

However because the Prayer Book is now identified as a forgery and is no longer to be assessed as positive evidence, we are able to treat this same evidence as being an event related (by the forgery) to the existence of GW about which we can make a negative claim - namely that this was not the Prayer book of GW. As such I see it represents negative evidence in the assessment of the existence of GW (assuming we had no other evidence for GW). It is evidence not for, but against the existence of GW.

If all we were to have tendered in support of the claim for the existence of GW is a criminal forgery of his Prayer Book, I see this not as positive evidence for the existence of GW, neither neutral/zero/null evidence, but rather as negative evidence AGAINST the claim. It is equivalent to the forging of historical sources that will be later used to construct an historical narrative. It is certainly NOT positive evidence, and since criminal activity and fraud must be denounced as fraud, it cannot be treated as neutral in the investigation. The fraud is a negative masquerading as a positive. It is not a neutral masquerading as a positive.

mountainman

So far as you are aware am I the first and only person to formulate and highlight the statement of negative evidence "Josephus does not mention Jesus"? So far as I am aware, the class of people who have made this statement is legion.