Clutch

Such an argument as stated would be indefensible -- not just in this case, but in any analogous case as well. So it is unclear who you would engage by asking that your interlocutor defend such an argument. Any case from Pauline silence must be probabilistic, ranging over many more details than just visiting the site of the crucifixion, and even at that could not serve as the balance of evidence itself.

The last time you offered this gloss on the connection between silence and anti-HJism, I pointed out that the connection must be probabilistic. At which point you asked for the exact probability in question. Might I recommend that this thread not go down such a pointlessly punctilious road again?

Peter Kirby

Hi Clutch,

That was just an example of a logically valid argument, and I have no intention of dredging up that whole discussion.

I have no problem with stating that the basis of the assumptions is probabilistic and that the conclusion is probabilistic as well. That is to be expected. The point of making a logical argument is so that people can recognize the premises which one sees as being the weakest.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

As I believe I pointed out, Vork was very wrong.


Historical material in the Pauline corpus found in Mark:

Jesus had a brother named James.
Jesus had a follower named Peter.
Jesus had followers.
Jesus was crucified.
Jesus was buried.
Jesus was handed over.
Jesus had a final meal with his disciples.
Jesus called Twelve Discipels.
Jesus prohibited divorce.
Jesus taught on the imminent coming of the Kingdom.

Are you going to argue that Paul and Mark independently created this overlapping material or that they independently fictionalized this man?

Numerous instances and the form of Mark shows that it used a number of sources (oral and most likely written). Mark has material which goes against the grain. For example, as mentioned here, the Synoptics on Jesus' Jewish-centered mission. As Sanders & Davies wrote, "The paucity of material on Gentiles in all three synotpics shows that there were limits on invention even in a good cause." (SSG)

Further, mythicists like to claim Paul was silent about details concerning the life of the historical Jesus. Obviously, then, Paul was not at liberty to make up Jesus material. Paul is even careful to distinguish between his commands and the Lord's at one (or two) point(s) is he not?

There are, then, at least three very strong reasons against the nonsense that Mark made it up:

1. An earlier corpus (letters of Paul) mentions several datums found in Gmark.

2. The Marcan material shows the existence of prior sources (oral and written).

3. Did Mark go out of his way and invent material which runs counter to the grain of his Gospel (e.g. Jesus and Gentiles)?

So much for that argument. Next?

Vinnie

Metacrock

Meta =>ahahhah I'm peranoid! ;-)


Meta =>Sorry. I've had so many posts to respond to, my eyes hurt, I'm just skiming them. The posts, not my eyes. So I guess I didn't read it carefully. I knew you weren't saying "Hey I have a straw man here for you to attack."



Let me give you an example of an (possibly unsound though valid) logical argument from a previous thread.



Meta =>Really Peter, I think I can manage to understand what it means to lay it out logically. But I think the web page is very clear and it's a very simple argument. However, I'll oblidge.






1. If a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (premise)

2. If a historical Jesus was crucified Pilate outside Jerusalem, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (premise)

3. If Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion, Paul visited the site of crucifixion. (premise)

4. If Paul visited the site of crucifixion, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise)

5. It is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (premise)

6. Assume that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (assumption for the reductio)

7. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty. (1 and 6)

8. ---- Therefore, Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (2 and 6)

9. ---- Therefore, Paul was able to visit the site of crucifixion with little difficulty, and Paul wanted to visit the site of crucifixion. (7 and 8)

10. ---- Therefore, Paul visited the site of crucifixion (3 and 9)

11. ---- Therefore, Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (4 and 10)

12. ---- Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters, and it is false that Paul mentioned a visit to the site of crucifixion in extant letters. (5 and 11)

13. Therefore, it is false that a historical Jesus was crucified by Pilate outside Jerusalem. (6 and 12)

I am not endorsing this argument--I had weighed in against it--but it is an example of a logically valid argument, one in which the premises are clear and the conclusion follows from the premises. Some people do not like putting their arguments in a logically valid form, but I think it is a great way to figure out exactly where it is that two people disagree.

So, I await your argument.

best,
Peter Kirby [/B][/QUOTE]


Meta =>You sure you wouldn't rather I do Hartshorne's modal argument?

O very well. It's not complicated.



1) Mythology tends to proliforate:multiple story versions are common

2) When historical facts are known to a wide audience, people tend not to deny the basic facts of an event.

a) eye witnesses keep it stairght

b) People who try to invent new aspects of the event are confronted with the fact that most everyone knows better

c) people know the story for a fact and just dont' bother to change it.

3) Story proliforations would probably influence further tellings, thus creating many more documents with different versions of the same story.

4) If a myth proliforates we would tend to find more versions of the same story, when there is only one version we can accept a degree of certainty that the story did not proliforate.

5) We do not find a proliforation of versions of the Jesus story in any sources we know of.

6) The most logical way to account for this single Jesus story is through p2, that everyone knew it was the case, there were too many eye witnesses to spread new versions.

a) It is illogical to assume that everyone just liked it so they didn't add to it.

b) There was no canonization process in place in the early period, and the single unified verison existed from the earliest trace of the story.

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

Vorkosigan

7)Therefore, we can assume that it is probably the case that the masses were familiar with the story of Jesus because the story reflects events known by all to be factual.

Meta, seems to me you've proved that whatever the story of Jesus might be, it ain't mythology. Of course, none of us thinks that it is mythology in the sense you mean. So you've done a fine job of aligning yourself with us.

Thanks.

Vorkosigan

Clutch

I have several books on Greek mythology, and they all tell pretty much the same stories. And that's a mythology much older than the Christian legends, with virtually no analogous top-down efforts to rationalize or standardize a canon.

Of course, there are signs within these myths that various distinct streams of narrative have been combined into single stories that now have some non-sequiturs (usually manifest as fecklessness or arbitrariness on the part of the gods). To a degree, the same can be said of the Christian canon. A lesser degree, I would say, but then, see above comments about the substantially post hoc Church efforts to put together a sensible product.

I too would place the gospels in the category of legend rather than myth. But I don't see any very interesting distinction between myth and Christianity with respect to story proliferation. Any actual differences appear to be explained just by the existence of a canon. But that, surely, is irrelevant to establishing the greater-than-mythological verity of the stories so enshrined.

Vinnie

There was one in the other thread. It went something like this.

The account of Achilles was embarrassing so this cannot be used to validate the existence of Jesus.

Vinnie

Clutch

Well, and to clarify the logical connections, be they inductive or deductive; to reveal potential confounds. Fair enough.

Goliath

Metacrock,

You believe that he was the son of a god. Therefore your claim that he existed is a supernatural claim. It's unbelievably simple.

Uhhhhh...no. Your claim that we shouldn't invade Iraq would not be a supernatural claim.

Now, now, Metacrock. I only hate xianity, not xians.

No. See above.


What arguments? I haven't seen a single proof of Jesus' existence in this thread. If you have such a proof, why have you dwelled upon red herrings instead of bringing out the proof?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Clutch

Was there a problem with this line of reasoning?

Proposed criteria to suggest the veracity of scripture which do not discriminate against known myth are failures.

Or, what am I missing?