archibald

Ok Dog-on,

I'm just popping in. I haven't read the posts since you asked me this, so apologies if I repeat something else someone has already said, or that you have said.

Here's how you would begin:

1. Ask yourself 'Did Jesus exist?'

2. Look at the evidence. You might start here, for example:

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

3. Make a provisional assessment

4. Ask yourself, 'is it possible to answer this question with certainty, and hence could I be wrong in my assessment?'

So long as your answers to no. 4 are 'no' and 'yes' respectively, you are home safe, as regards assumptions.


After that, you can, if you want, look into all matters in more detail, without assuming anything at any point.

Though you may come to hold a position on this or that, but this is not an assumed one.

At all times you must guard against the possibility that you may lapse into assumption. you must always remember hat in this field, you can only ever arrive at your own personal assessment of probability.

As for historains and scholars, their methodologies differ. There isn't, I don't think one single methodology in either camp. All can be found online. Some foolish peole may utilize these methodologies after making an initial assumption. That is their problem, not yours. :]

As for thinking about it rationally/sceptically (whether one is an atheist, an historian, a theist or an atheist), I think certain principles, such as economy and coherence of explanation and consistency in applying a methodology are very important, as is trying to be objective, and trying to see things in their context and not purely through modern eyes. None of these offer certainty. They just indicate rational preferences and/or guidance in the absence of proof or persuasive evidence in either direction.

You may do the same for any 'historical figure'. You may reach all sorts of different conclusions, but you haven't assumed anything as a starting point.

:thumbs:

dog-on

Thanks Archibald.

In your view, what bedrock fact about the historical Jesus would you launch you investigation from, your starting point, as it were?

aa5874

The evidence for an historical Jesus of antiquity is NOT in wikipedia.

You MUST start with SOURCES of antiquity.

Bart Ehrman an historian claimed the Gospels and the Sources for the Gospels are historically UNRELIABLE.

HJ of NAZARETH must be PRESUMED to have existed since NO credible evidence can be presented.

This is Bart Ehrman in a debate on the Resurrection with William Craig. See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

There is NO other alternative but to PRESUME HJ into existence.

archibald

There isn't one.

jakejonesiv

OK, that is a reasonable starting point.

Jake

archibald

It is the ONLY reasonable starting point.

It's as close to a fact as you can get in this quagmire. :]

(Btw, I also do not know for a fact that I am not a brain in a jar, but that may be widening the discussion too far. Or not. Even Dale Allison cites Wittgenstein).

dog-on

If I were to suggest a starting point, I suppose one could investigate the report of Tacitus.

Perhaps the only possible bedrock fact? Maybe?

archibald

Not a bad starting place (if one wants a single starting position, which I would definitely want to avoid, actually).

But it would be better to start with it as a reasonably good indicator, comparatively speaking, of something. :]

And once you include 'possibly' you are safe.

dog-on

Agreed. This starting position, at least, may provide an actual possible external reference.

The question is, considering various motivations, how do we then verify it?

Do we need an external reference to the external reference, ad infinitum?

archibald

Well, first, I think, remind ourselves of the overall position

(1) It's only a text, not an artifact
(2) we don't have the original
(3) It's not a primary, or even secondary (I think?) source.

As against that, it is from a comparatively independent source (ie. non-Christian), and the author is identified, and generally 'respected' for his thorough historiographical methods. Of the time, I mean. Maybe he wouldn't be considered thorough today.

Also, it is not 'late'. Not by the standards of ancient history, where contemporary references are rare, especially for lesser figures (lesser at the time).


Now. I think it's fair to say that if we only had Tacitus, we might be well on the way to approaching a consideration of historiocity. However, this would only be on the grounds of consistency, and must take into account that ancient Historians do err towards historicizing their figures (vested interest, lol). Spartacus, for example, has, I believe, only 1 'good' reference.

So, no, we don't need to go ad infinitum, to make an assessment. But that assessment may be wrong. It's only a probability.

It might be worth adding here that my view is that we need, eventually, to look at the overall pattern of 'evidences', since there aen't any single good ones.