FathomFFI

That's easy. Let's just look at one subject they discuss.

Firstly, this is an argument from silence; a logical fallacy.

Secondly, the assertion above fails to consider the OT was written hundreds of years before the gospels. The other side of the polemic is that Nazareth is not mentioned into the OT is because it may not have existed in OT times.

Another argument from silence; another logical fallacy.

Secondly, does the Talmud name every Galilean town except Nazareth? Unless it does, then this argument falls flat.

For the record, it doesn't even come close to naming every Galilean town.

Another argument from silence. Another logical fallacy.

Paul did not mention many towns, so I guess they all don't exist either?

Another argument from silence. Yet another logical fallacy.

So far all arguments are logical fallacies. They have no support because they are logical fallacies. Since it's their position that Nazareth never existed during the time of Jesus, they must provide conclusive evidence with something to the effect that clearly demonstrates that Nazareth did not exist.

They have provided no evidence whatsoever, and arguments from silence are not evidence. Instead, they are assertions only, and are not even supported with even the minimal abductive reasoning required to even qualify them as a valid argument.

Arguments from silence can be validated if and only if tangible evidence is presented. The evidence must be cohesive to the argument, and directly attest to the point. Then, with abductive reasoning you can present a valid argument from silence.

They have failed to do that.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Arguments of this nature fall into the category of argumentum ad ignorantiam and are listed among the logical fallacies. It is an argument from ignorance.

Now, let's provide evidence to dispute any assertion that Nazareth did not exist.

* The first mention of Nazareth in a secular source is a carved inscription, discovered in 1962 and dating from the third or fourth century; other archaeological evidence, from Nazareth itself, confirms the existence of a town on that site at the time of Christ.

* The earliest known gospel fragments come from the Gospel of John, known as the Papyrus P52 and had been dated to circa AD 120. The existence of this fragment is archeological evidence that the Gospel of John existed at least as early 2nd century, and the Gospel of John mentions a town called Narareth in John 1.46.

It does not matter if you view the Gospel of John as a factual or fictional depiction of the life of Jesus, because at the end of the day we still have text from AD 120 that states that the town of Nazareth existed.

This is called "evidence," my friend. In an argument where both sides of the polemic are discussed openly, it will be up to the readers to decide if any truth exists to the argument from silence claims of jesusneverexisted.com, or if they would rather think rationally and view actual evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who argues from silence without adding any evidence for support is to be brushed off as being without credulity.

spamandham

In deductive reasoning, arguments from silence are fallacious. But that isn't true with inductive arguments, which is what virtually all of historical analysis (and most other science) boils down to. The absence of evidence, when evidence aught to exist, is indeed a valid inductive argument. inductive arguments are about assessing probabilities, not proofs per se.

So the question then is, are the various arguments from silence in regard to Nazareth substantial or not? I think they are when you combine them. They're not conclusive (but then again, what is in regard to ancient history?), but they are substantial.

I don't know what abductive reasoning is. I'll assume you meant 'inductive', in which case, the arguments from silence are relevant.


True, but the claim of the author of jesusneverexisted is that Nazareth was 'invented' as a result of the fact that it was mentioned in the Gospels. There is sufficient textual evidence to suggest that 'nazarite' was transliterated to 'nazorean' in the gospel story, so this actually supports the author's claim that the gospel writer had no actual knowledge of Nazareth.

An argument for the nonexistence of something must necessarily always be an argument from silence. I think you'll agree that leprechauns don't exist. If you were to formulate a case for that, how would you do it?

Amaleq13

Abductive_reasoning

spamandham

Thanks! ....learn something new every day...

Huon

The Rylands papyrus P52 mentions this and only this (translated from Greek) :

Recto : Therefore Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." The Judeans said to him, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." This was to fulfill the word which Jesus had spoken to show by what death he would die. Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, "Are you the king of the Judeans?"

Verso : Therefore Pilate said to him, "Then you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into society: to witness to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Judeans again, and he told them, "I find no crime in him."

No mention of Nazareth in these two bits. But, certainly Nazareth existed, since P52 is silent about that. :huh:
No. But Nazareth could have been a very small village, completely insignificant, without any archeological remnants of the Ist century CE, or older.

FathomFFI

This is where abductive reasoning trumps deductive reasoning. Since abductive reasoning begins with established facts as circumstantial evidence, then at least a degree of actual evidence has been presented.

The argument of silence regarding the non-existence of Nazareth might be valid if there were any facts to support it. Arguments from silence are not facts; they are not evidence. They all register zero on the evidence scale. It doesn't matter how many zeros you add up, they will all still total to zero.

A valid deduction argument guarentees the truth of a conclusion. If the conclusion arrived at is not the only possibility, then the deductive argument is invalid. When all other possibilities have been eliminated, then whatever remains must be the truth. That is how deduction arguments work; they are only valid when they guarentee the truth. It begins with an assumption that is truthful, and ends with a truthful conclusion, but only when all other possibilities have been eliminated, or the very least thrown into serious doubt.

If by deductive reasoning other possibilities have been thrown into serious doubt, the argument defaults to abductive whereas it is reasoned that the most likely probability is what approximates the truth the best.

This argument is discarded when we understand that by comparing the synoptics against the Johnanie, and realizing they did not originate from the same source, then we have two entirely independant sources referring to Nazareth as a town.

Now we have two completely independant 1st century sources regarding Nazareth as a town. Jesusneverexisted.com is in error due to considering the Gospels or the Bible as being a single source, when in fact it was comprised of several independant sources.

The synoptics can certainly be traced back to a single source, but the Johnanie is independant and cannot be traced to the synoptics. Again, through abductive reasoning we can approximate the truth while anchored with evidence, and arrive at the best possible conclusion.

Given the evidence, the best possible conclusion is that Nazareth existed.

There is no evidence for their existence, and the burden of proof remains with the positive claimant.

FathomFFI

Logic dictates that since P52 has been confirmed as a remnant of the Gospel of John, and dated to circa AD 120, then we have a record of the existence of the Gospel of John for circa AD 120, and thus a record of Nazareth being regarded as a town in at least circa AD 120.

This evidence allows us to reason effectively, and approximate the truth that Nazareth existed.

It certainly beats the hell out of an argument from silence for a certainty, since we have evidence.

Agreed.

Toto

I think you will find that P52 can be dated to the second century paleographically, but a precise date of 120 CE is wishful thinking. There has been some discussion on this before here.

I don't think that you can show that John comes from completely separate sources from the synoptics, especially if you are trying to claim two separate sources.

And I would reject your claim that an argument from silence is invalid. It is one piece of data - you have to discuss whether evidence would be expected. In the case of Nazareth, it is possible that it was so small it escaped the notice of Josephus and other commentators. The real argument has to come from archeology. I am not up on the archeology, but I don't think that the question is that clear.

I would advise a search of this forum for prior threads in any case.

Huon

Yes, but we have not the exact text of that time (circa AD 120), we simply have an indication that the first version of GJohn existed. And toto mentioned that the date of "circa AD 120" is very approximative, due to the method of dating paleographically.
Not at all. We have not the full text of the first version of GJohn. We do not know anything about Nazareth of the Ist century.

FathomFFI

Even if we went to the extreme and fairly split the difference of it being twice as young at circa AD 240 right down the middle, we are still in the 2nd century with an age of circa AD 180.

It omits 90% of the content of the synoptics. I hate using Wiki, but sometimes it is excellent for finding other sources. Further info I have seen elsewhere is also found in the Wiki source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omissio...Gospel_of_John

Since 90% of the GOJ is not found in the synoptics, then I believe we can say with confidence that the source for the GoJ was not the synoptics at all.

With a 90% certainty ratio, abductive reasoning approximates the truth that the GoJ is a separate individual source for Nazareth being regarded as a town in at least the 2nd century.

The statement found in John 1.46 regarding Nazareth is not found in the synoptics, and therefore cannot be traced to the synoptics. This evidence is conclusive.

The argument from silence would be valid if and only if the the deductive reasoning was valid. But the reasoning has been demonstrated as invalid because although it begins with a truth, its conclusion does not eliminate other possibilities; possibilities which have a higher chance of probability when the argument automatically defaults to abductive reasoning.