spin

When you say, "not historical[..]", do you mean "didn't happen" or "cannot be shown to have happened"?

Does the fact that a text exist purporting to be of the same genre as an event related in a text indicate that the event must not have happened? Does the existence of a film called Death of a President which represents the assassination of GW Bush indicate that the assassination of Kennedy didn't happen?


spin

aa5874

You only have questions, no evidence!

spin

I don't need any evidence. I don't support a position. If you want to claim historicity, show some evidence. If you claim that none of it happened, show some evidence. I have never seen an ounce of evidence from your pronouncements.


spin

Wolfie

I have no problem with the idea that Jesus (or Iesu or Iesa or Ieso or Yus Azaf), son of Jospeh and Mary, actually lived. That he was the Christ, the Son of God, whatever, is a different matter - and, to my mind, no amount of philosophical argument will prove that one way or the other.

I personally don't believe that he was - but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a real historical person and, on the face of it, a really cool guy.

I'm currently swayed by the theory that the person we call Jesus of Nazareth was, in fact, a Bhuddist - there's a plethora of sites concerning this: this is quite comprehensive, though a tad difficult to navigate; here and here.

aa5874

There is no evidence of nothing. In other words, nothing is the evidence of nothing

spin

So you do see your problem, I hope.


spin

gstafleu

Either/or. If it cannot be shown to have happened it cannot be part of evidence for anything. If something cannot be shown to have happened we can keep it in the back of our minds for future reference in case new evidence pops up, but no more than that.

Of course not. But that's not the point. The point is that (a) the evidence for an HJ is sparse and (b) just about everything he is supposed to have said or done can be seen as derived. There is an ancient (Greek I think) analogy about a bundle of reeds: individually they are easy to break, but the whole bundle is quite strong. Similarly, the similarity between the crucifixion/resurrection is not a lone data point, it should be seen against the background of (a) and (b). If the c/r was the only thing that was derived, your Death of a President analogy would have been valid.

Gerard

gstafleu

Doesn't methodology require that the asserter of a positive claim (X happened) produces the evidence? And that lacking that, the hypothesis gets shelved?

Gerard

spin

Does this mean that we are dealing with three positions from historical data:

1. the data shows something happened;
2. the data shows something didn't happen; and
3. the data is inconclusive?

And doesn't that mean showing that something doesn't fit category 1 does not imply it fits category 2? Therefore if someone wants to claim actively that something didn't happen they have to supply evidence for it being put in category 2.

It is a point in the argument. You cannot claim that a text which apparently evinces a genre or a trope, necessarily must have the other characteristics of that genre or trope.

I'm sympathetic with the view, but the only thing that ultimately supports the view is Occam's Razor.

You haven't discounted the analogy, you have just attempted to say that it doesn't cover enough, though that was never my intention. Yes, you can add more information into the discourse to cloud the analogy, but the analogy was asking you to do so. What you had said was insufficient and my analogy was simple. If you want I can give you more complex ones.

Arguing from lack of positive evidence leads to the rebuttal: "lack of evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack." Arguing from similarities leads to your need to show that they are not just coincidence.


spin

spin

Certainly. But I would go further and say not just a positive claim, but also a negative one. It should be sufficient to shelve the claim without claiming the opposite, ie the negative claim.


spin