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?

[Beto]

For Alexander, I found we have portions of an astronomical diary, contemporary of Alexander, recording the death of a Babylonian king and some reference to his battles, that can be cross-checked with later documents. On a given date it simply states "The king has died". Therefore, we know with great degree of certainty, by means of a contemporary source, that at the very least, a Babylonian king died on that day. In my opinion, the emotional unattachment of what appears to be an "irrelevant" entry to the main purpose of the diary, vows to its legitimacy. It seems to me the historical events are reported in the diary mainly for their connection with celestial omens, and not for their own sake. How can the same be said about anything written in the gospels, where the truthfulness of the content dictates its own validity as "God's" inspired "Word"?

[Furrowed Brow]

It seems that you are trying to establish that the only validation Christians present for the whole of Christianity and Jesus is the logical fallacy appeal to emotions.

This post answers the question in the OP. We have two evidences. The stone and the Christian texts. The stone - whichever you look at it is good evidence for Pilate. If what the stone says is true it is evidence for Pilate, if what the stone says is a lie it is still evidence for Pilate. The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC. If they are true then JC existed, if the are a lie then he did not exist. It is a point of sound reasoning. That is all. The evidence of the stone for the existence of PP is superior.

[achilles12604]

Which four sources for Jesus? I've provided, in a different thread, a link which succinctly describes the three sources for Socrates and argues for their validity. How can I study or be convinced of the validity of these four Jesus-sources if I'm flying blind?

Which sources. What am I laying my benchmarks by? I can only accept this challenge if you can show me what evidence for the existence for Jesus you are using.

Ok. As OIG points out in order to be organized we must identify what are the primary sources for each so we are on the same page.

I offer the following:

Jesus: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, Book of John

Alexander the Great: Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Arrian and possible Justin

Socrates: Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes


Anyone have issues that these are the primary sources we need to compare for these three people?

I see MANY similarities between all of these sources.

First, they were all at least 50 years out of date.

Jesus: Events concluded around 30-38 CE.

Matthew 80-100 CE out of date an average of 55 years.
Mark 65-80 CE out of date an average of 36 years.
Luke 80-130 CE out of date an average of 63 years (i think 130 is laughable but 80-100 . . maybe)
John 90-120 CE out of date an average of 63 years



Alexander died 323BCE

Plutarch 79CE - out of date 402 years
Diodorus (1st century exact dates unknown) out of date between 323 and 423 years
Quintus Curtius 41-54 CE out of date an average of 371 years
Arrian lived 86-146 CE - out of date between 409 and 546 years
Junianus 3rd century - out of date between 623 and 723 years

Socrates died 399 BCE

Plato wrote from 395BCE - 350ish BCE out of date an average of 24 years
Xenophon 370-360 BCE - 30-40 years out of date
Aristotle lived 384-322 - wrote (i ran out of time again. . . . be back again.)


I just ran out of time so someone else look up Socrates and when plato et al wrote.

[Goose]

It seems that you are trying to establish that the only validation Christians present for the whole of Christianity and Jesus is the logical fallacy appeal to emotions.

This post answers the question in the OP. We have two evidences. The stone and the Christian texts. The stone - whichever you look at it is good evidence for Pilate. If what the stone says is true it is evidence for Pilate, if what the stone says is a lie it is still evidence for Pilate. The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC. If they are true then JC existed, if the are a lie then he did not exist. It is a point of sound reasoning. That is all. The evidence of the stone for the existence of PP is superior.

This is sound reasoning?

PP: If the evidence is true he existed. If the evidence is untrue it's evidence he existed.
JC: If the evidence is true he existed. If the evidence is untrue he did not exist.

Can you explain that to me? It looks more like a biased non-sequitur.

[achilles12604]

For Alexander, I found we have portions of an astronomical diary, contemporary of Alexander, recording the death of a Babylonian king and some reference to his battles, that can be cross-checked with later documents. On a given date it simply states "The king has died". Therefore, we know with great degree of certainty, by means of a contemporary source, that at the very least, a Babylonian king died on that day. In my opinion, the emotional unattachment of what appears to be an "irrelevant" entry to the main purpose of the diary, vows to its legitimacy. It seems to me the historical events are reported in the diary mainly for their connection with celestial omens, and not for their own sake. How can the same be said about anything written in the gospels, where the truthfulness of the content dictates its own validity as "God's" inspired "Word"?

I am familiar with these tablets. I was hoping to discuss the primary sources first . . . unless of course you consider the tablet a "primary source". If so, by all means we can discuss it now.

[Furrowed Brow]

It seems that you are trying to establish that the only validation Christians present for the whole of Christianity and Jesus is the logical fallacy appeal to emotions.

This post answers the question in the OP. We have two evidences. The stone and the Christian texts. The stone - whichever you look at it is good evidence for Pilate. If what the stone says is true it is evidence for Pilate, if what the stone says is a lie it is still evidence for Pilate. The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC. If they are true then JC existed, if the are a lie then he did not exist. It is a point of sound reasoning. That is all. The evidence of the stone for the existence of PP is superior.

This is sound reasoning?

PP: If the evidence is true he existed. If the evidence is untrue it's evidence he existed.
JC: If the evidence is true he existed. If the evidence is untrue he did not exist.

Can you explain that to me? It looks more like a biased non-sequitur.

Sorry Goose did you catch the relevent post. I'll repeat.

We look at who the authors were, and their possible motivations for the message they are giving. If the inscription on the stone is true then Pilate exists. If it is a lie, i.e. the temple was never built, Pilate did not pay for it, it was commissioned by someone else, the authors still have no obvious reason for lying about Pilate because they have no vested interest in perpetuating his existence if indeed he did not exist. So if the inscription is a lie as far as evidence of Pilate goes we can with good reason accept it as evidence of Pilate.

With Christian Gospels, if they are true JC existed, if they are a lie, then they are not evidence for the existence of JC because the author have a vested interest in perpetuating JC’s existence. If you have yes-yes evidence that is stronger than yes-no evidence, and yes-no evidence needs further corroboration.

[Goat]

Which four sources for Jesus? I've provided, in a different thread, a link which succinctly describes the three sources for Socrates and argues for their validity. How can I study or be convinced of the validity of these four Jesus-sources if I'm flying blind?

Which sources. What am I laying my benchmarks by? I can only accept this challenge if you can show me what evidence for the existence for Jesus you are using.

Ok. As OIG points out in order to be organized we must identify what are the primary sources for each so we are on the same page.

I offer the following:

Jesus: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, Book of John

Alexander the Great: Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Arrian and possible Justin

Socrates: Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes


Anyone have issues that these are the primary sources we need to compare for these three people?

I see MANY similarities between all of these sources.

First, they were all at least 50 years out of date.

Jesus: Events concluded around 30-38 CE.

Matthew 80-100 CE out of date an average of 55 years.
Mark 65-80 CE out of date an average of 36 years.
Luke 80-130 CE out of date an average of 63 years (i think 130 is laughable but 80-100 . . maybe)
John 90-120 CE out of date an average of 63 years



Alexander died 323BCE

Plutarch 79CE - out of date 402 years
Diodorus (1st century exact dates unknown) out of date between 323 and 423 years
Quintus Curtius 41-54 CE out of date an average of 371 years
Arrian lived 86-146 CE - out of date between 409 and 546 years
Junianus 3rd century - out of date between 623 and 723 years



I just ran out of time so someone else look up Socrates and when plato et al wrote.

You forgot the Astronomical Diaries for Alexander, that mentioned Alexander
defeating the Achaemenid king Darius III Codomannus, and gave astronomical signs, so we know that it was October 1st, 331 bce.

You also forgot the archaeological evidence. While not direct evidence, the archaeological sites of battles that meet with the age and accounts of his battles.

The Astronomical Diaries are a primary source, written down during the life of Alexander. We also have archaeological evidence that battle happened.

So, we have a convergence of evidence from several sources that agree on an event. We also have coins the proper age that depict Alexander, a common practice to show the current ruler on the coins. This is evidence that happened
DURING the life of Alexander , from multiple sources that did not have an axe to grind.

[achilles12604]

Which four sources for Jesus? I've provided, in a different thread, a link which succinctly describes the three sources for Socrates and argues for their validity. How can I study or be convinced of the validity of these four Jesus-sources if I'm flying blind?

Which sources. What am I laying my benchmarks by? I can only accept this challenge if you can show me what evidence for the existence for Jesus you are using.

Ok. As OIG points out in order to be organized we must identify what are the primary sources for each so we are on the same page.

I offer the following:

Jesus: Book of Matthew, Book of Mark, Book of Luke, Book of John

Alexander the Great: Plutarch, Diodorus, Curtius, Arrian and possible Justin

Socrates: Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes


Anyone have issues that these are the primary sources we need to compare for these three people?

I see MANY similarities between all of these sources.

First, they were all at least 50 years out of date.

Jesus: Events concluded around 30-38 CE.

Matthew 80-100 CE out of date an average of 55 years.
Mark 65-80 CE out of date an average of 36 years.
Luke 80-130 CE out of date an average of 63 years (i think 130 is laughable but 80-100 . . maybe)
John 90-120 CE out of date an average of 63 years



Alexander died 323BCE

Plutarch 79CE - out of date 402 years
Diodorus (1st century exact dates unknown) out of date between 323 and 423 years
Quintus Curtius 41-54 CE out of date an average of 371 years
Arrian lived 86-146 CE - out of date between 409 and 546 years
Junianus 3rd century - out of date between 623 and 723 years



I just ran out of time so someone else look up Socrates and when plato et al wrote.

You forgot the Astronomical Diaries for Alexander, that mentioned Alexander
defeating the Achaemenid king Darius III Codomannus, and gave astronomical signs, so we know that it was October 1st, 331 bce.

NA-UH I did not forget them. In fact I mentioned them about 3 posts ago.

See here is a link to them to prove I have not forgotten . . . did you know that these so called contemporary tablets are actually not proven to be contemporary?!!!??



http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506

Anyway, as they are secondary sources I was planning on getting to them when primary sources were done.

You also forgot the archaeological evidence. While not direct evidence, the archaeological sites of battles that meet with the age and accounts of his battles.

You do enjoy the shotgun approach don't you?

How about we examine one piece of information at a time. It seems that primary sources are a decent place to start doesn't it?

Have no fear, we shall get there eventually. Patience my young apprentice. (in my best Emperor voice)

The Astronomical Diaries are a primary source, written down during the life of Alexander. We also have archaeological evidence that battle happened.

They are primary?

Oh. My mistake.

So, we have a convergence of evidence from several sources that agree on an event. We also have coins the proper age that depict Alexander, a common practice to show the current ruler on the coins. This is evidence that happened
DURING the life of Alexander , from multiple sources that did not have an axe to grind.

Good good.

Now can we actually go slowly and carefully instead of throwing out so much information that none of it can actually be examined?

Is there a problem with going slowing and carefully?

[Goose]

It seems that you are trying to establish that the only validation Christians present for the whole of Christianity and Jesus is the logical fallacy appeal to emotions.

This post answers the question in the OP. We have two evidences. The stone and the Christian texts. The stone - whichever you look at it is good evidence for Pilate. If what the stone says is true it is evidence for Pilate, if what the stone says is a lie it is still evidence for Pilate. The Christian Texts are not evidence of the same order because you have to look at them in a particular light to see evidence for JC. If they are true then JC existed, if the are a lie then he did not exist. It is a point of sound reasoning. That is all. The evidence of the stone for the existence of PP is superior.

This is sound reasoning?

PP: If the evidence is true he existed. If the evidence is untrue it's evidence he existed.
JC: If the evidence is true he existed. If the evidence is untrue he did not exist.

Can you explain that to me? It looks more like a biased non-sequitur.

Sorry Goose did you catch the relevent post. I'll repeat.

We look at who the authors were, and their possible motivations for the message they are giving. If the inscription on the stone is true then Pilate exists. If it is a lie, i.e. the temple was never built, Pilate did not pay for it, it was commissioned by someone else, the authors still have no obvious reason for lying about Pilate because they have no vested interest in perpetuating his existence if indeed he did not exist. So if the inscription is a lie as far as evidence of Pilate goes we can with good reason accept it as evidence of Pilate.

With Christian Gospels, if they are true JC existed, if they are a lie, then they are not evidence for the existence of JC because the author have a vested interest in perpetuating JC’s existence. If you have yes-yes evidence that is stronger than yes-no evidence, and yes-no evidence needs further corroboration.

We are on a similar track as the "They should have known better" thread. Paul would fall into your yes-yes category. Paul was an enemy of the church and had no vested interest in perpetuating the "lie." In fact, he probably had everything to lose. Paul is also very early by ancient standards. You may go down the path that Paul does not mention an earthly Jesus. If you want we can look at the verses where this notion that Paul never speaks of an earthly Jesus is obliterated. You should answer this regarding Paul. It seems you are passing this over. I may have missed where you have already tackled this though.

[Furrowed Brow]

This one is for Goose and Achilles

The writings of Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon are yes/yes evidence for the existence of Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon.

As for Socrates. Well the style of writing makes it difficult to gauge where fact end and fiction starts. However the writings are yes/yes evidence that the fact that the name Socrates had common currency in ancient Greece of the time of writing. They are also yes/yes evidence that the common currency of the name Socrates represented a figure who asked questions, if not too many questions. The figure of Socrates is certainly a philosopher. However Plato’s writings by themselves are only yes/yes evidence for the fact that Plato liked to use Socrates in his writings as a philosophical figure. In Plato’s hands it can be reasonably argued Socrates is a cipher. So this is yes/no evidence for the existence of Socrates. Xenophon whilst writing of the trial, is also yes/no evidence on the ground it could be argued that Xenophon is grinding axes and the figure of Socrates is again a cipher. Aristophanes comedy is probably the strongest evidence of the three on the ground that humour is funnier when you satirise real people. But again - though I think this gets near- it does not fully fall into the yes/yes category of evidence.

However taken together the yes/yes evidence lets us say with a high degree of confidence that: the name Socrates had considerable currency in the ancient Greece of time of writing. That the name is deeply associated with the notion of a philosopher, critical thinking and awkward questioning. It is representative of a school of thinking and a particularly Greek approach to philosophy. The brand name Socrates was well established before the death of Plato 348/7 BC, and the death of Xenophon 355 BC, and Socrates was already a cultural figure prior to that when Aristophanes wrote Clouds 423Bc. So what we can say is that the cultural figure of Socrates certainly existed by 423, and that brand Socrates most certainly exists in the right time period. As for a real historical character in the same time period, the evidence requires interpretation and some reading into to get a real historical Socrates. To be fully confident of a real historical Socrates, we need some yes/yes evidence.

Is it reasonable to infer a real Socrates? It is moot. On the assumption that is was common for real characters to appear in dialogues (plays) and this was just a Greek form of writing, then Socrates as a real figure is plausible - and it is reasonable to work with the assumption that Socrates was real. The yes/no evidence has not turned into yes/yes, but there is enough there for a working theory. If the Greek were of the habit of writing ciphers into their dialogues, or there is any possibility Socrates could have been a cipher, then no. We cannot reasonably infer a real Socrates. So what we get is yes to brand Socrates and a possible yes to real Socrates - but also a possible no to real Socrates. The unresolved question require a bit more scholarship and a bill to Socrates for a cup of hemlock.