Reasonable evidence cerca 0 CE

[achilles12604]

I have been butting heads with a few people here about demanding more, or "better" evidence for Jesus and Christian claims, than for the rest of contemporary history. So I am starting this thread.

The first example I can think of which indicates that the evidence surrounding Jesus is BETTER than other contemporary history is a comparison of the evidence of Jesus with that of Alexander the Great. The biographies of Jesus are 300 years closer to the events, and so is the contemporary external evidence. In addition to this, if we lost all the biographies of Jesus, we would still have a great deal of evidence about Christianity from the beliefs of the Nazarenes, Paul, James, etc. However if we lost all the accounts of Alex' life, we would know very little about him other than he was a powerful man who conquered in many places.

Two questions:

What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?

Why is this evidence superior?


For the Theists

What other examples do we have of people lacking evidence until much later?

What are the differences between the evidence for this person, and the evidence for Jesus?

[achilles12604]

So what external supporting evidence can you point to for Alexander? Socrates? You have mentioned Clouds but you also admit it tells us nothing about the man.

Clouds was a comedy that satirised Socrates and made him look a sophist. Anyhow I have already made the point several times and repeated it several times, and Goat disagreed with my stance, that I was non committal about Socrates. We can locate the brand of Socrates to right time right place. Clouds is interesting evidence because it pokes fun at Socrates, and as comedy works better when the subject is real, this suggest a real target of the satire, but I’d still take a conservative line. However if Socrates did exist we can say he was a philosopher who had a penchant for awkward questions. But even if for sake of argument we posit his existence, we can’t say for certain he drank hemlock.

We keep missing one another because I am examining the value of evidence for determining the history and actions of 3 individuals (assumed to exist). You are continuing to address the actual existence of these people, which of course places a different value on each piece of evidence.

If we are looking for evidence of somethings existence, then archeology would be paramount as it is long lasting, and impossible to alter or forge.

But if we are looking for details, then archeology becomes of much less value as what it can tell us is very limited.

THIS is where we keep crossing wires.



So as I asked you before, would you like to approach the question of evidence for existence, or history of the subjects in question? The value of each piece of evidence varies with the subject being discussed.

Alexander? He has archaeology.

Yes....and like YES! And that is darn important and gives us a backbone to any putative story of Alex.

It shows existence and sets a stage. I could cite that the archeology relating to the book of Luke and Acts is also a perfectly set stage and therefore increases the plausibility of Luke. It is . . . as you put it . . . a backbone of the stories in Luke because if the archeology disagrees with the literature, the literature becomes problematic.

But for determining details, all archeology can do is confirm or deny WRITTEN WORD. Hence, the written word must also exist or else we end up with Easter Island or Stone Hedge. Archeology totally out of context.

And of course this brings us back to my question to you. Do you want to discuss the OP and focus on comparing the evidence value in relation to the history and details of the persons (assuming existence) or would you like a side topic about evidences related to the actual existence?

Once again, the value of evidences changes with the subject being discussed.

We would certainly expect this.

Why? They only found archeologically evidence for Troy in the 1871 - before that it was considered a myth. However we can’t use Homer as evidence there really was a Trojan Horse, and if there was a war whether it was really over Helen. However we can use the archaeology to support claims about the general scope of Alexander’s life. Also PP's stone was only dug up on the 60s.

And this proves . . . . that technology is getting better with time? I agree 100%.

But outside of confirming his existence, what does the archaeology tell us?

He had political and cultural significance at the time the ecological finds confirm. JC has texts that confirm his cultural significance at the dates that can be ascribed to the texts. So by 90+Ad we know the notion of JC the wonderworker had spread wider than the Christian movement.

You lost me. Where did you go here?

No. I didn't think so. So while it would be nice, so would film coverage of the Gettysburg Address.

It would. But lacking that we still know exactly where and when the speech was given and five original manuscripts remain.

Wrong.

Besides you missed my point. Asking for archeology from Jesus is asking for illogical evidence because it is illogical to assume that a teacher would have left any archeology to find.

Since we don't expect there to be any, the fact that there is none, is not a mark against the plausibility of Jesus.

However, I did say anything would help to give the Gospels a real backbone to hang the story onto to. With some corroborating evidence we can then begin to discern myth from possible truth. What we are able to discern dependent on the nature of the evidence.

You mean like the fact that Luke's rendition of geography, ports, cities, etc are all 100% correct? This lends credibility to his works.

So what would you point to for external supporting evidence for our comparing subjects?

For Socrates you might want to review my post 40.

For Alex you have the archaeology, and the various writings we interpreter in light of the archaeology.

You have archeology. The writings don't come until 400 years later and even then they contradict what the archeology has told us.

The most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.html

Your two external sources contradict one another and your detailed source is proven incorrect by your very early source. So where does this leave Alexander?

For Alex we have artefacts + writings.

Which contradict each other. Once again where does this leave Alexander?


I shall review post 40.



in the meantime, we can look at the archeology of Alexander and if it contradicts the later writings and compare it to the writings of the Gospels and see if those writings contradict what we know from archeology. Thus far I believe we have already found one contradiction with the 400 year old writings of Alexander.

I am open to examine claims that archeology contradicts the 30 - 50 year old writings for Jesus.

[achilles12604]

In Anabasis Book III, Chapter 1, Xenophon recounts how he came to be on the expedition. He speaks to his friend, the philosopher Socrates. This piece is written as a personal account of an expedition. It is not a retelling of Socrates defense at his trial, it is not a satire about a man. It does seem to be a piece of evidence for a real physical philosopher named Socrates with whom Xenophon was familiar and expects others to be familiar with.

I concur. This is evidence for his existence. It is not however evidence for his life events, or history, etc.

Same problem I am having with Furrowed Brow. (see above)

[Goat]

In Anabasis Book III, Chapter 1, Xenophon recounts how he came to be on the expedition. He speaks to his friend, the philosopher Socrates. This piece is written as a personal account of an expedition. It is not a retelling of Socrates defense at his trial, it is not a satire about a man. It does seem to be a piece of evidence for a real physical philosopher named Socrates with whom Xenophon was familiar and expects others to be familiar with.

I concur. This is evidence for his existence. It is not however evidence for his life events, or history, etc.

Same problem I am having with Furrowed Brow. (see above)

So what.

Let's see evidence of Jesus's existence. First, lets jump that hurdle.

What do you have except writings decades after the events, and the letters of one person who only saw 'Jesus' in a vision. Not only that, but the writing decades after the event had motivation to 'sell' something (Jesus is God)

[Solon]

I concur. This is evidence for his existence. It is not however evidence for his life events, or history, etc.

Same problem I am having with Furrowed Brow. (see above)

Well at least we agree there is evidence for the existence of a man, Socrates, who was a philosopher living in Athens around 401 B.C. The amount of evidence required to support mere existence is small. Further claims about the life of Socrates would require more than the brief paragraphs in Anabasis.

Xenophon's Memorabilia may be a bit more helpful with details. If we take Anabasis as evidence of a Socrates and one with whom Xenophon is familiar, then claims in another work of his that purport to provide details about this friend of the author may be taken seriously. Xenophon's Apology is more suspect as he is reporting as a secondary source, which he admits. He was, at the time of the trial, still adventuring in Asia Minor as reported in Anabasis. The Memorabilia was written later in Xenophon's life in the early to mid 4th century B.C. It was partially a response to a work no longer extant, however the second portion are ancedotes for the life of Socrates. Personal experiences and stories about the man as told by one who knew him. These we may take as reliable information about the details of events in his life.

I am of the opinion, regarding Jesus, that the level of evidence one should require for a historical man who lived in the Levant circa 1st century A.D. is far less than the evidence required to believe that such a man was in fact a god incarnate who raised the dead and walked on water. I do not find anything problematic with this position, I do not think you do either, from what I have read.

The mundane details of his life, who his friends were, where he lived or traveled do not require the same level of evidence as acts which defy all conventional understanding of physics and biology. If I were to claim Socrates could fly and darken the sky with storm clouds at will based upon a newly discovered text by Aristophanes or Xenophon I would expect skepticism at least and dismissal without further evidence at most.

[Solon]

Sorry, double post.

[achilles12604]

In Anabasis Book III, Chapter 1, Xenophon recounts how he came to be on the expedition. He speaks to his friend, the philosopher Socrates. This piece is written as a personal account of an expedition. It is not a retelling of Socrates defense at his trial, it is not a satire about a man. It does seem to be a piece of evidence for a real physical philosopher named Socrates with whom Xenophon was familiar and expects others to be familiar with.

I concur. This is evidence for his existence. It is not however evidence for his life events, or history, etc.

Same problem I am having with Furrowed Brow. (see above)

So what.

Let's see evidence of Jesus's existence. First, lets jump that hurdle.

What do you have except writings decades after the events, and the letters of one person who only saw 'Jesus' in a vision. Not only that, but the writing decades after the event had motivation to 'sell' something (Jesus is God)

That my good friend, is obviously another thread. Care to make one?

[Furrowed Brow]

It shows existence and sets a stage. I could cite that the archaeology relating to the book of Luke and Acts is also a perfectly set stage and therefore increases the plausibility of Luke. It is . . . as you put it . . . a backbone of the stories in Luke because if the archaeology disagrees with the literature, the literature becomes problematic.

The literature is always problematic…ever read Derrida or Foucault? Basically, every text needs to be deconstructed and reassembled to reveal the conceits, hegemony, and silences at work. Anyhow I partly digress.

Your point about Luke - Homer talks abut Troy. But we still do not know whether there was a Trojan horse, or that there really was a war fought over Helen. The Gospels have JC in Jerusalem. But we can’t use Jerusalem as evidence of the veracity of the story.

And of course this brings us back to my question to you. Do you want to discuss the OP and focus on comparing the evidence value in relation to the history and details of the persons (assuming existence) or would you like a side topic about evidences related to the actual existence?

But I am answering the questions of the OP. And “assuming existence” does not make one text better evidence or more accurate than another. In any case, we are beyond assuming existence for Alex. Even with the contradictions we still have Alex’s armies at the battle of Gaugamela.

Which contradict each other. Once again where does this leave Alexander?

More tangible than JC.

In addition to this, if we lost all the biographies of Jesus, we would still have a great deal of evidence about Christianity from the beliefs of the Nazarenes, Paul, James, etc.

This is the sentence that reveals why we are crossing. The “biographies” tell us a great deal about the beliefs of some early Christians, but we can no more surmise their accuracy as biographies than we can the accuracy of Homer’s description of victory by the Trojan Horse method. The later writings of Alex tells us a great deal about the legend of Alexander the Great as it had been established hundred of years after his death, but it is the archaeology and the artefacts that give a literal foundation to the story. As I previously implied, remove all the archaeology and artefacts and the legend of Alexander is on a par to that of Achilles. Alexander would be treated as a possible myth.

The most intriguing information from the Astronomical diary, however, is related to the battle of Gaugamela, which was fought on 1 October 331. It suggests that the Persian soldiers were demoralized and states that they left their king and fled during the battle (text). This is exactly the opposite of what we read in the four tertiary sources, Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch and Arrian: they write that Darius left his soldiers.

Exactly!! A classic case of why we have to look very carefully at a text that starts to tell us a story about someone. However, we still know Alex came generally conquered and went. The details are murky. This is the sort of stuff that crusty academics spend their careers on. Interpretations coming in and out and back into fashion and pushed by one academic or other. However, the fact that the Gospels and Paul do not contradict each other is equally evidence of consistent editorial control.

The link you supplied talks about secondary sources. The whole thrust of the counter argument being given here and in other threads is that the Gospels and Paul do not achieve that status. There is a complete lack of primary source evidence. Which in the case of Alex we get with artefacts. The Gospels are not “a biography”, they are a hagiography or a fabrication or…… a biography, written by people out to promote their movement. What they are excellent evidence for is revealing the thoughts, aims and indentations of the authors in the context of the times they are writing, and the movement they are writing for. Everything else is moot.

I am open to examine claims that archaeology contradicts the 30 - 50 year old writings for Jesus.

Troy was a myth without contradictory archaeology, and the Trojan Horse is still a myth. Alex existed, battles fought, pretty much accepted, whether he won or won so well as the legend pretends is another matter. Remove all the archaeology, and all but five texts and you’ve got a story about a mythical Alex, who might possibly be based on some real character.

[achilles12604]

I concur. This is evidence for his existence. It is not however evidence for his life events, or history, etc.

Same problem I am having with Furrowed Brow. (see above)

Well at least we agree there is evidence for the existence of a man, Socrates, who was a philosopher living in Athens around 401 B.C. The amount of evidence required to support mere existence is small. Further claims about the life of Socrates would require more than the brief paragraphs in Anabasis.

Xenophon's Memorabilia may be a bit more helpful with details. If we take Anabasis as evidence of a Socrates and one with whom Xenophon is familiar, then claims in another work of his that purport to provide details about this friend of the author may be taken seriously. Xenophon's Apology is more suspect as he is reporting as a secondary source, which he admits. He was, at the time of the trial, still adventuring in Asia Minor as reported in Anabasis. The Memorabilia was written later in Xenophon's life in the early to mid 4th century B.C. It was partially a response to a work no longer extant, however the second portion are ancedotes for the life of Socrates. Personal experiences and stories about the man as told by one who knew him. These we may take as reliable information about the details of events in his life.

And I would basically agree. I would also put forth that Xeno, Plato, etc have about the same historical credibility as the Gospels and as a secondary source, Paul's letters. I put forth a post early on in this thread which compared these sources on thier lateness. With the exception of Clouds (which does not help the details at all), all the writings on Socrates and Jesus are reasonably close to one another regarding time between events and writings.

So if JC has similar writings discussing the details of his life's adventures, why should the writings of Socrates be regarded with higher trust than those of Jesus?

Be careful not to beg the question with your response.

I am of the opinion, regarding Jesus, that the level of evidence one should require for a historical man who lived in the Levant circa 1st century A.D. is far less than the evidence required to believe that such a man was in fact a god incarnate who raised the dead and walked on water. I do not find anything problematic with this position, I do not think you do either, from what I have read.

The mundane details of his life, who his friends were, where he lived or traveled do not require the same level of evidence as acts which defy all conventional understanding of physics and biology. If I were to claim Socrates could fly and darken the sky with storm clouds at will based upon a newly discovered text by Aristophanes or Xenophon I would expect skepticism at least and dismissal without further evidence at most.

This is the same objection I keep running into. Hence the entire purpose of this thread.

I started this thread to prove to all those who hold this opinion (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), that they in fact are disregarding the works of Jesus, not historically as they like to think, but rather for no reason other than personal bias. This position in itself begs the question that the supernatural can not exist.

Hence, I still put forth, that if you accept one set of works with criteria A including subject matter X, and you reject another set of works which also fits criteria A but is about subject matter Y, you have committed a logical fallacy, or rather a prejudiced historical fallacy.

[achilles12604]

Forgive me for skipping right to the heart of the issue.

The Gospels are not “a biography”, they are a hagiography or a fabrication or…… a biography, written by people out to promote their movement. What they are excellent evidence for is revealing the thoughts, aims and indentations of the authors in the context of the times they are writing, and the movement they are writing for. Everything else is moot.

It is this unsupported assumption which causes most of the friction.

I say the Gospels ARE a biography, eyewitness accounts and therefore first hand information on par with your archeology. The only difference is that the Gospel accounts happen to be quite a bit more detailed and therefore superior to Alexander's archeology.

Now you will probably say that I am assuming that the Gospels are biographies, but this is exactly why I compared Jesus to both Alexander and Socrates.

If you compare these written sources on Jesus, with the written sources on Socrates, (which BTW is a much more even comparison as you are trying to compare writings (Apples) to Archeology (oranges)), you find that historically they are very close.

I purpose that the only reason to reject the Gospels and accept the writings of Socrates is personal bias, not historical plausibility.

I am open to examine claims that archaeology contradicts the 30 - 50 year old writings for Jesus.

Troy was a myth without contradictory archaeology, and the Trojan Horse is still a myth. Alex existed, battles fought, pretty much accepted, whether he won or won so well as the legend pretends is another matter. Remove all the archaeology, and all but five texts and you’ve got a story about a mythical Alex, who might possibly be based on some real character.

This of course did not answer my purposal at all. I am still open to examine claims that archeology contradicts the 30-50 year out of date writings of Jesus, and then compare them to any contradictions between what archeology tells us about Alexander (which isn't much) and the writings 400 years out of date.



One last parting shot. Since you wish to put forth that Alexander has archeology supporting him and his later writings (even though they actually contradict one another), I would ask you what archeology supports Socrates? What is the "backbone" there?

[Solon]

And I would basically agree. I would also put forth that Xeno, Plato, etc have about the same historical credibility as the Gospels and as a secondary source, Paul's letters. I put forth a post early on in this thread which compared these sources on thier lateness. With the exception of Clouds (which does not help the details at all), all the writings on Socrates and Jesus are reasonably close to one another regarding time between events and writings.

So if JC has similar writings discussing the details of his life's adventures, why should the writings of Socrates be regarded with higher trust than those of Jesus?

Be careful not to beg the question with your response.

While Xenophon did not write Memorabilia until after Socrates was dead he is someone who knew him personally and lived at the same time as Socrates. Memorabilia was written 25-35 years after Socrates reported date of death. The events and anecdotes described in the second part are ones that Xenophon had first hand knowledge of. He would be a primary source for anecdote where he is present just as he is a primary course for his conversation in Anabasis.

Paul does not claim to have ever met Jesus the man. Any claims he makes about Jesus are hearsay at best. The authorship of Xenophon's works, are not in question, and are written by a man who had a personal relationship with Socrates the man. Paul can make no such claims about Jesus, nor does he.

If the Gospels are written by eyewitnesses who were present when Jesus said or did various things then they would be on par with Xenophon. Mark may be, it is certainly dated early enough to be written by someone who was present for some of the things described within. John has a later date and differs significantly from the other Gospels in interesting ways, such as the date of the last supper. John also makes claims about the Word which cannot be verified by any means I am familiar with.

I will say this, I tend to believe there was a historical man, Jesus, I however doubt the fantastic things attributed to him. There are no fantastic claims that break the laws of physics about Socrates that I am aware of. If there were I would be similarly skeptical of them.

This is the same objection I keep running into. Hence the entire purpose of this thread.

I started this thread to prove to all those who hold this opinion (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), that they in fact are disregarding the works of Jesus, not historically as they like to think, but rather for no reason other than personal bias. This position in itself begs the question that the supernatural can not exist.

Hence, I still put forth, that if you accept one set of works with criteria A including subject matter X, and you reject another set of works which also fits criteria A but is about subject matter Y, you have committed a logical fallacy, or rather a prejudiced historical fallacy.

I think I better understand the point you are making now. I cannot swear with absolute certainty to the details of the life of Socrates. I am inclined to believe that what Xenophon wrote represents the truth, though I take both his and Plato's Apologies to be less reliable. I also take the character of Socrates in The Republic to be a fictionalized account of a real man used as a part of Plato's writing style. Plato used real people in his dialogues, but they are not direct quotes. So I do not take everything written about Socrates as true or without skepticism. I do the same with accounts of Jesus. I also take this view with other works, such as Herodotus. I accept that there was a great and bloody battle at Marathon, I do not however accept that Phidippides spoke with the god Pan on his return run from Sparta to Athens before the battle.

Do you accept Herodotus as a source for the battle of Marathon or the Battle of Thermopylae?

Now, if so, do you accept him as a source for the existence of the god Pan?