Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-09-2012, 06:10 PM

If it can't be falsified, it's not even a hypothesis.

aa5874 · 04-09-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If it can't be falsified, it's not even a hypothesis.

You don't even know what "falsified" means with respect to an hypothesis which is EXACTLY what I predicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

There is simple NO empirical evidence, experiment or observation, that can refute that Jesus of the NT was Myth--a product of Mythology.

mountainman · 04-09-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnmathan

..

Now, if I could get something clarified: am I understanding that the HJ crowd is pigeonholing Jesus in with Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Arthur, in that they are heavy layers of mythology piled atop probably historical but utterly mundane individuals (or composites thereof)? Does the HJ position strip all supernatural aspects of the stories away, or is it a catch-all that includes both the literal-interpretationist Christians as well as historians who just don't buy that the whole Christian movement started on a myth? As an admittedly amateur student of history, I find that position interesting, and the rancor that seems to exist on both sides baffling.

The HJ crowd is not unified.

There are secular HJ'ers who strip out all of the supernatural elements and look for a mundane Palestinian at the core of the legends.

And there are liberal Christians like Crossan who seem to want Jesus to have existed in order to demonstrate that social or personal transformation through unconditional selfless love and radical pacifism is possible

But there are also Christians who need Jesus to have existed in order to leave open the possibility that he was more than human.

To sketch a balanced perimeter to the mystery of christian origins, it is also self-evident that the antithetical MJ crowd is also not unified. There are various MJ theories.

Perhaps the best way of describing the entire environment is summarised by R.G.Price's Spectrum of Historical Possibilities:

Quote:

A Spectrum of Historical Possibilities ...

(1) The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true. Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.

(2) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.

(3) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.

(4) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about.

(5) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real person or persons from a spectrum of time, perhaps from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus. Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.

(6) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not.

(7) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras. The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.

(8) Pious Forgery
"The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

A diagram is often useful .......

Simplication of the Spectrum of Historical Possibilities

Historicity is a key element in all theories on this spectrum, and may be modelled as a percentage as follows:

For HJ theories the historicity ranges between 100% and 0.0001% corresponding to positions 1 to 4 in the above list, where the positive historicity value reflects a positive measure of historical authenticity and genuineness.

For the MJ theories, the historicity ranges between -0.0001 % and -100%, where the negative value connotes a) no positive historicity whatsoever, and b) a measure of (negative) fabricated historicity and forgery, which is reflected in the range of myth positions therefore from 5 to 8 above.

THE FUNDAMENTAL ROLE OF EVIDENCE

By definition, unless one is pushing a theological wheelbarrow, the Popperian falsifiability and refutation and/or acceptance of any of these theories in the entire spectrum, is based on ancient historical evidence, admissible to this discipline alone.

The problem is of course, there is a fundamental disagreement on the assessment of evidence.

In regard to this problem, my advice to all readers who are attempting to analyse all positions in this field is to study what ancient historians have to say about these problems regarding the ASSESSMENT of the evidence itself.

My bolding ......

Quote:

Originally Posted by ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS by Arnaldo Momigliano

ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

Chapter 1:

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

p.3

Principles of Historical research need not be different
from criteria of common sense. And common sense teaches
us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should
do. I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical
scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

What I can perhaps do usefully is to emphasise as briefly
as possible three closely interrelated points of my
experience as a classicial scholar who is on speaking terms
with biblical scholars.

1) our common experience in historical research;

2) the serious problems we all have to face because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence and of the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and idealogy
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources;

3) what seems to me the most fruitful field of collaboration
between classical and biblical scholars.

Let me admit from the start that I am rather impervious to
any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not
those of profane history.

p.7

One is almost embarrassed to have to say
that any statement a historian makes must
be supported by evidence which, according
to ordinary criteria of human judgement,
is adequate to prove the reality of the
statement itself. This has three
consequences:

1) Historians must be prepared to admit
in any given case that they are unable
to reach safe conclusions because the
evidence is insufficient; like judges,
historians must be ready to say 'not proven'.

2) The methods used to ascertain the value
of the evidence must continually be scrutinised
and perfected, because they are essential to
historical research.

3) The historians themselves must be judged
according to their ability to establish facts.

The form of exposition they choosen for their presentation
of the facts is a secondary consideration. I have of course
nothing to object in principle to the present multiplication
in methods of rhetorical analysis of historical texts.

You may have as much rhetorical analysis as you consider
necessary, provided it leads to the establishment of the
truth - or to the admission that truth is regretfully
out of reach in a given case.

But it must be clear once for all that Judges and Acts,
Heroditus and Tacitus are historical texts to be examined
with the purpose of recovering the truth of the past.

Hence the interesting conclusion that the notion of forgery
has a different meaning in historiography than it has in
other branches of literature or of art. A creative writer
or artist perpetuates a forgery every time he intends
to mislead his public about the date and authorship
of his own work.

But only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

tanya · 04-10-2012, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If it can't be falsified, it's not even a hypothesis.

Consider please these two statements:

a. The description of Jesus in Mark represents a mythical character;

b. The description of Jesus in Mark represents an historic character;

What would verify a? What would disprove b?

The answer, in both cases is found in Mark 1:1 --> "...son of God".

Voila, problem solved. You Diogenes, seek to steer the ship into the wind, by asking the two contrary questions:

What would verify b? What would disprove a?

You seek to employ Mark to verify an historic Jesus, and to refute the idea that Jesus is a mythical character.

Unfortunately, the text doesn't support your prejudice....Mark 1:1 does support the former case, proving a, and disproving b.

Your claim that the mythical interpretation of Jesus, is unverifiable, is wrong, as any non-partisan observer from Tibet or Angola or Lapland would verify, upon reading the original Greek text.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-10-2012, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If it can't be falsified, it's not even a hypothesis.

Consider please these two statements:

a. The description of Jesus in Mark represents a mythical character;

b. The description of Jesus in Mark represents an historic character;

What would verify a? What would disprove b?

The answer, in both cases is found in Mark 1:1 --> "...son of God".

Mark is irrelevant to the question. I'm not asking a question about Mark. I'm not asking a question about the character in Mark. I'm asking a question about the historical origins of the Christian religion. No Christian literature is able to tell us, so there's no point in looking. Mark's understanding of the "son of man" sayings (which Mark did not fabricate himself) have no bearing on the question. The question can be asked without regard to anything but Tacitus.

Hell, you don't even need Tacitus. The question can be asked simply about the origins of the Christian religion.

maryhelena · 04-10-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

If it can't be falsified, it's not even a hypothesis.

Consider please these two statements:

a. The description of Jesus in Mark represents a mythical character;

b. The description of Jesus in Mark represents an historic character;

What would verify a? What would disprove b?

The answer, in both cases is found in Mark 1:1 --> "...son of God".

Mark is irrelevant to the question. I'm not asking a question about Mark. I'm not asking a question about the character in Mark. I'm asking a question about the historical origins of the Christian religion. No Christian literature is able to tell us, so there's no point in looking. Mark's understanding of the "son of man" sayings (which Mark did not fabricate himself) have no bearing on the question. The question can be asked without regard to anything but Tacitus.

Hell, you don't even need Tacitus. The question can be asked simply about the origins of the Christian religion.

Bingo! Finally......................that is the only question of any real, substantial, relevance - "..the origins of the Christian religion".

And to tackle that question requires that the gospel JC story be put on the shelve. One has, as it were, to get behind the story - and the only way to do that is to consider Jewish history.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-10-2012, 09:25 AM

I'm not asking how to answer the question of Christian origins, I'm asking what hypothetical answer to that question would falsify mythicism.

Would any origin in a genuine personality cult falsify mythicism?

aa5874 · 04-10-2012, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mark is irrelevant to the question. I'm not asking a question about Mark. I'm not asking a question about the character in Mark. I'm asking a question about the historical origins of the Christian religion. No Christian literature is able to tell us, so there's no point in looking. Mark's understanding of the "son of man" sayings (which Mark did not fabricate himself) have no bearing on the question. The question can be asked without regard to anything but Tacitus.

Hell, you don't even need Tacitus. The question can be asked simply about the origins of the Christian religion.

What absurdity!!!

The earliest Jesus story cannot be irrelevant to the origins of the Jesus cult of Christian.

You would be RIDICULED as completely unreasonable if you were to claim Joseph Smith's Mormon Bible is irrelevant to the origins of Mormonism.

gMark is the EARLIEST Canonised Gospel and did have almost complete influence on LATER authors.

Based on Existing Codices it was the gMark Jesus story that STARTED the BELIEF not a human character.

The author of gMatthew seemed to have BELIEVED the story of gMark or wanted people of antiquity to believe it and made SURE he used VIRTUALLY ALL of gMark and PUBLICLY declared Jesus was FATHERED by the Holy Ghost.

gMark is the IMPETUS for the start of the Jesus cult which is no different to Joseph Smith's Mormon writings.

maryhelena · 04-10-2012, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not asking how to answer the question of Christian origins, I'm asking what would qualify as a "historicist" answer to the question.

What would "qualify as a 'historicist' answer to the question" of Christian origins? A historically plausible interpretation, reading, of Jewish history. i.e. that gospel JC story has to be demonstrated to be a reflection of Jewish history. And that rules out any scenario that features a nobody crucified itinerant preacher/carpenter.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-10-2012, 09:37 AM

The earliest Christian story is unavailable to us. We have no access to what the original narrative was, or what events led to its formulation.

That doesn't mean we can't ask whether it started as a personality cult or not, though. And all I'm asking is whether mythicists would say that any genuine personality cult origin would qualify the object as a "Historical Jesus."

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

04-09-2012, 06:10 PM	#181
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	If it can't be falsified, it's not even a hypothesis.

04-10-2012, 09:25 AM	#187
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I'm not asking how to answer the question of Christian origins, I'm asking what hypothetical answer to that question would falsify mythicism. Would any origin in a genuine personality cult falsify mythicism?

04-10-2012, 09:37 AM	#190
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The earliest Christian story is unavailable to us. We have no access to what the original narrative was, or what events led to its formulation. That doesn't mean we can't ask whether it started as a personality cult or not, though. And all I'm asking is whether mythicists would say that any genuine personality cult origin would qualify the object as a "Historical Jesus."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.