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?

[Goose]

Goose, you're are drowning not waving. What conccusion did I reach regarding Socrates?

It 's not the conclusion about Socrates itself. It's the assumptions regarding the evidence that supports Socrates. You should come join me in the "Are the Gospels Hopelessly Anonymous" thread.

Is it reasonable to infer a real Socrates? It is moot.

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.

Are you prepared to come to the same conclusion and willing to accept the need for more evidence for JC?

No, I think there is sufficient evidence for Socrates. To request additional evidence for Socrates or Jesus is a tacit admission that sufficient evidence exists. If there were insufficent evidence one could fail the existence of either one on the evidence that exists using the normal tools of historical inquiry. There would be no need to demand more or better evidence. To request more evidence is merely a subjective proposition and ultimately not objectively quantifiable.

[achilles12604]

Ok. You and goat both refer continually to these cuniform tablets to the ignoring of all else. So let's settle this little detail.

"Objection your honor! Leading!"

From my perspective, it's HUGE!

Point 1)

The cuniform tablets are not necessarily contemporary. http://www.jstor.org/pss/606506?cookieSet=1 I defy you to find the date that the one that mentions Alexander was written.

"The king died" was written on the 11 June 323 B.C. entry. Where's your problem here? And in the link you provided, the issue is not Alexander, "The death of Alexander the Great in June 323 B.C." is not being argued, and seems to be stated as fact. Did I read wrong? Was the age of the tablet an issue, or the dating of events? Unless you can argue there was any motivation for the forgery of these diaries, I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I never claimed the diaries were forged. I asked you to provide the date that they were written so that we can see that they were in fact contemporary. Nothing more.

Point 2)

The cuniform tablets are extremely limited in telling us ANYTHING about Alexander. The only thing that we have gleened from them concerning this man is that there was a Battle. Interestingly enough, the information presented by the tablet directly contradicts and disproves the later more in depth writings about this same battle, thus causing a much more elaborate and detailed source to be proven to be inaccurate. Therefore even if they are contemporary (which you have claimed but not proven) they are useless. Utterly pointless in an examination of Alexander and his life.

That's your opinion, and as far as I can tell plenty of historians disagree with you. I can offer you several links for consideration but I'm guessing you already found them.

Please don't let me stand in the way. Present them. Show us what great knowledge we have gain about Alexander from these tablets.

Point 3)

These same tablets contain a great deal about omins (especially regarding Alexander), God's, and astrology. If you put these forth as reliable evidence, you must conclude that sources which contain the supernatural CAN BE RELIABLE sources.

Show me a few if you don't mind... most of what I find is on these lines:


[Year fourteen of Alexander, Month Two]

[The first part is missing.]

Night of the fourteenth, beginning of the night, the moon was [lacuna] in front of Theta Ophiuchi.[1]

[Night of the eighteenth,] first part of the night, Mercury was fourteen fingers above Saturn.

[lacuna] crossed the sky.

The twenty-first: clouds crossed the sky.

Night of the twenty-second: clouds [crossed the sky; lacuna]

[Night of the twenty-third: lacuna] 2 2/3 cubits; clouds were in the sky.

The twenty-fourth: clouds [were in the sky].

[lacuna] clouds crossed the sky.

Night of the twenty-seventh: clouds crossed the sky.

The twenty-seventh: [lacuna]

[The night of the twenty-eighth?; lacuna] stood to the east.

The twenty-ninth: The king died. Clouds [were in the sky].[2]

[That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: lacuna; 3] cress, 1 sût 4 qa; sesame 3 1/2 qa.

[At that time; lacuna] Saturn was in Gemini, at the end of the month in Cancer; Mars was in Virgo.

[lacuna] the Gate of Bêl [lacuna] [4]

[/quote]

Of course I shall oblige.

The authors of these seventy tablets believed that the gods had created the movements of the planets to give the people on earth indications of the future. Enûma Anu Enlil was a dictionary of the heavenly language and contains all kinds of explanations, like:

When in the month Ajaru, during the evening watch, the moon eclipses, the king will die. The sons of the king will vie for the throne of their father, but will not sit on it.
[Enûma Anu Enlil 17.2]

The interesting thing is that these predictions were not, like the horoscopes in our newspapers, invented by charlatans. Although the general idea behind Enûma Anu Enlil, that the gods used the planets to show us the future, is wrong, the Mesopotamian astronomers used a purely scientific method. They observed the skies, collected data, discovered regularities, and warned the authorities when they knew something bad was about to happen.

http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html

The God's assisted the writers of these tablets in fortune telling.

The Astronomical Diaries
The first stage of the Chaldaean scientific project was the recording of the celestial phenomena and their correlation with important political events. The Astronomical Diaries, a large collection of texts from Babylon that is now in the British Museum, offer exactly that. A complete Diary dealt with six months, each divided into two halves:

1. The astronomical observations, arranged day by day. We learn about the positions of the moon, eclipses, solstices, equinoxes, and the positions of the planets. The rising and setting of Sirius are also noted. Sometimes, the Chaldaean who wrote the texts disarmingly remarks "clouds were in the sky" or "I did not watch". It ends with a summary.
2. Acts and facts that were thought to have been predicted by the celestial omens. Here, we can find the level of the river Euphrates, the prices of commodities (barley, dates, mustard, sesame, wool...), and political events.

More fortune telling. . .


Here is the passage which refers to Alexander himself. Please do note the last part of this reading . . .

A very interesting example is the tablet dealing with the battle of Gaugamela on 1 October 331, in which Alexander the Great defeated his opponent, the Achaemenid king Darius III Codomannus and conquered Mesopotamia (text). First, there must have been the dating formula, which is now lost but can be reconstructed:

Year 5 of Artašata who is called Darius, month 6.

Then, the author describes the celestial omens, which happen to be quite spectacular:

Day 13 [20 September]: Sunset to moonrise: 8º. There was a lunar eclipse. Its totality was covered at the moment when Jupiter set and Saturn rose. During totality the west wind blew, during clearing the east wind. During the eclipse, deaths and plague occurred.
Day 14: All day clouds were in the sky.
Day 15: Sunset to moonrise: 16º. There were clouds in the sky. The moon was 32/3 cubits below [the star] Alpha Arietis, the moon having passed to the east. A meteor which flashed, its light was seen on the ground; very overcast, lightning flashed.

The lunar eclipse is also known from Greek and Latin sources, which mention that Alexander sacrificed to the sun, moon, and earth (incidentally proving that the Macedonian king knew what caused an eclipse). As we will see below, there is a lot more to be said about this omen.

The next parts of the Diary are the summary of the preceding texts, and the description of the events that were believed to be predicted by the omens: the level of the Euphrates, the prices of commodities and political events - in this case, the decisive battle in the war between Macedonia and Persia:

That month, the equivalent for 1 shekel of silver was: barley [lacuna] kur; mustard, 3 kur, at the end of the month [lacuna]; sesame, 1 pân, 5 minas.
At that time, Jupiter was in Scorpio; Venus was in Leo, at the end of the month in Virgo; Saturn was in Pisces; Mercury and Mars, which had set, were not visible.
That month, the river level was [lacuna].
On the 11th of that month, panic occurred in the camp before the king. The Macedonians encamped in front of the king.
On the 24th [1 October], in the morning, the king of the world [Alexander] erected his standard and attacked. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops of the king [Darius] he [Alexander] inflicted. The king [Darius], his troops deserted him and to their cities they went. They fled to the east.

No Chaldaean could have been surprised by this outcome of the battle. After all, the significance of the eclipse was described in Enûma Anu Enlil. Here is the explanation:

If on either the 13th or 14th Ulûlu the moon is dark; the watch passes and it is dark; his features are dark like lapis lazuli; he is obscured until his midpoint; the west quadrant - as it covered, the west wind blew; the sky is dark; his light is covered.
[the significance is:] The son of the king will become purified for the throne but will not take the throne. An intruder will come with the princes of the west; for eight years he will exercise kingship; he will conquer the enemy army; there will be abundance and riches on his path; he will continually pursue his enemies; and his luck will not run out.
[29th ahû tablet of Enûma Anu Enlil;
obv.59-61]

Any further objections from the defense?

[achilles12604]

Similarly the sources for Socrates are out of date between 20-40 years

No. Aristophanes wrote Clouds 423BC. That’s is before the death of our putative Socrates. And I think you really need to go back and take look at what conclusions I draw from this kind of evidence. You will find I do no infer the existence of a real Socrates.

Ok. What do we learn about Socrates life from Clouds? What do we learn about his teachings?

48 The entire purpose of this exercise is to prove that the evidence for Jesus is equivalent to the rest of contemporary history. You yourself wrote that you would approach the evidence the "same way".

I think the actual questions are:

• • What contemporary person has superior evidence to that of Jesus?
    
    Why is this evidence superior?

And the debates seems to be focusing on Alex, Soc, and JC, with a bit of PP and maybe now Plato too. I have given clear indication why the stone for PP is superior evidence and a methodology. I have applied the same methodology to Socrates and I get the beginnings of brand Socrates in the correct time frame and already established in the years following his death. Blow for blow, you do not have a document from within Jesus’ putative lifetime that names Jesus. We have that for Socrates. But again you will see I do not infer existence from this fact.

I am not sure why PP keeps being brought up. I think that maybe you were debating this with Goose.

I am examining the value and validity of the evidence. Isn't this what historians do? Isn't that what we should do when making a choice?

non-theists are constantly harping that Jesus doesn't have any evidence to support him. As I stated earlier, I think the value of the evidence for Jesus is equal to that of Socrates or Alexander. Through each bit of evidence we learn more about the person's life, teachings and actions. This is where I feel that these three people are roughly equal.

Ah be careful Furrowed. As I showed with my last post where I compared each source, we have identical problems with both the sources of Alex and Socrates.

Observe that most of the writings associated with Alexander are 300 - 600 years out of date.
Okay. I did not do Alexander, I think Socrates serves the point and draws out the logic of the argument.

Shall we file this under "we have a slight delay?" . These date ranges are similar to those of Jesus. So would you allow that if the sources for Jesus are out of date, so are the sources for Socrates and Alex?

Clouds 423BC.

Very good. And what do we learn about the teachings of Socrates and the life he lived from Clouds?

Next unclear authorship. Just as with Paul's letters, many of the writings of Plato were not actually written by him. These include mention of Socrates. So if we are unaware of who wrote some of Plato's writings, how is this different than the Gospels, of which we have at least a decent idea of who wrote them?

So I can ask you to please prove beyond reasonable doubt that these works were even authored by the people in question.

Again I am going to point you back to the methodology I used and the conclusions I reached. We can doubt the existence of Plato and the authorship of the works attributed to Plato, but the evidence for Socrates and the conclusions draw remain unaffected. Because….I have not read anything into the evidence that the evidence does not support. If I had concluded that Socrates existed based on the evidence I cited then the weakness of that inference demands we attend to the specific authorship. But I do not do that. The only real assumption here is that the documents are yes/yes evidence for Plato. If there are doubts over the authorship, and over Plato, then we step back to a reasonable postion. The author was of the time and was Greek. But the evidence for Socrates and conclusions drawn remain unaffected. Which pretty much shows the inferences I make are safe.

You cited clouds twice in this post. However, this is not a primary source of information on Socrates because historians have found much more information about the man from Plato. Now if you wish to conceed and throw away all of Plato's works, then we can see what we are left with. Since Plato is the primary source of information about Socrates, I doubt you would be left with much. But surprise me. Let's see what clouds actually teaches us about the man.

Considering the vast span of time for Alexander (300-600 years) and the fact that even if his authors were labelled correctly, they obviously had no knowledge of the man at all, doesn't this put Jesus ahead of Alexander as far as source materials are concerned?

I’ll point you back to the yes/yes, yes/no methodology. If the authors for JC offer a true historical document then JC existed. Likewise the case for Alex. That is the yes side of the methodology. Then we address the no side. And I have given the argument for why the evidence for JC is Yes/No, and why the no reading is - on its own terms - overwhelming. Therefore there is no chance of JC evidence being yes/yes, and so the demand for more evidence. As for Alex then I have not looked at this case in any great detail but in the British Museum we can be found number of artefacts, that place brand Alexander right time right location

British Museum 1
British Museum 2
British Museum 3

This counts as Yes/Yes evidence for brand Alex, and Yes/yes evidence for his existence. Note the yes to his existence is not mathematical proof of existence, just a yes to whether the evidence counts towards his actual existence. the second yes also does not take in consideration any misidentification of evidence, so the second yes is always open to revision. We are not deciding on the truth of existence of Alex or Soc or JC, the yes/yes-yes/no method assesses how we use the evidence, and what it is reasonably safe to infer.

You have no yes/yes evidence for JC. And you cannot place JC to right time right location. Both criteria we can meet for Socrates and Alexander, and I’ll repeat I do not draw a definite yes for Socrates, and I do not conclude any other deeds to Alex without further scholarship and evidence.

[/quote]

I missed your entire yes/no sermon. I think it was directed to Goose.

At any rate, you cite the artifacts at the British Museum. But without reference, what good are artifacts? What would we know about Alexander without the written accounts of his life filling in all the blanks? Almost nothing.

And I would also point out, that we have no expectation of artifacts from Jesus. So citing the lack there of is not very effective. How much archeology do we have for Socrates?

None. Why? Because he, like Jesus, was a teacher and as such, did not routienly knock down cities for us to find later.


A final thought. Your yes/yes and yes/no seem quite subjective in nature. Who exactly gets to decide what is a yes or a no? How is this figured out?

[achilles12604]

I drew these conclusions earlier. Someone tell me if I am wrong, and if so . . . why?

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.


If you disregard Jesus because he is lacking any direct archeological evidence as to the events of his life, you must also disregard Socrates as he has no archeology which tells us ANYTHING about him.

If you disregard Jesus because his sources are 30 -50 years out of date, you must also disregard most of Socrates sources, and almost everything associated with Alexander.

If you disregard Jesus because of the legendary development theory, you certainly must get rid of all the accounts of Alexander and even some of Socrates.

If you disregard the writings of Jesus because they could have been altered or even forged entirely, you must disregard much of the writings of Plato. You must also disregard the 4 accounts of Alexander as the tablets disproved their claims about the battle.

[Beto]

I never claimed the diaries were forged. I asked you to provide the date that they were written so that we can see that they were in fact contemporary. Nothing more.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Being a diary, and knowing when a certain entry was written, we naturally assume the recorded event happened at that time. Mind you, I don't actually know if the date is there. If everyone says 323 B.C. I'll assume it's there. So unless historians aren't doing the math right (I suspect the date wasn't actually 323 B.C. ), we can only dismiss it as evidence if we argue it's a forgery, agree?

But before anything else, I'm not sure if you are agreeing that the tablet is an original contemporary evidence atesting the existence of Alexander the Great.

[Beto]

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.

From http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html :

"The interesting thing is that these predictions were not, like the horoscopes in our newspapers, invented by charlatans. Although the general idea behind Enûma Anu Enlil, that the gods used the planets to show us the future, is wrong, the Mesopotamian astronomers used a purely scientific method. They observed the skies, collected data, discovered regularities, and warned the authorities when they knew something bad was about to happen. The astronomers of Assyria and Babylonia, usually called Chaldaeans, are the fathers of science - or at least of the scientific method and the disciplines of astronomy, and, as we shall see below, historiography."

These are not recordings of supernatural events. These are predictions, omens, based on precise recordings of celestial events. Not the same.

[achilles12604]

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.

From http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html :

"The interesting thing is that these predictions were not, like the horoscopes in our newspapers, invented by charlatans. Although the general idea behind Enûma Anu Enlil, that the gods used the planets to show us the future, is wrong, the Mesopotamian astronomers used a purely scientific method. They observed the skies, collected data, discovered regularities, and warned the authorities when they knew something bad was about to happen. The astronomers of Assyria and Babylonia, usually called Chaldaeans, are the fathers of science - or at least of the scientific method and the disciplines of astronomy, and, as we shall see below, historiography."

These are not recordings of supernatural events. These are predictions, omens, based on precise recordings of celestial events. Not the same.

The Sky will tell you when a king will die?

Are you into astrology now? I better go look up my horoscope.

[Beto]

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.

From http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html :

"The interesting thing is that these predictions were not, like the horoscopes in our newspapers, invented by charlatans. Although the general idea behind Enûma Anu Enlil, that the gods used the planets to show us the future, is wrong, the Mesopotamian astronomers used a purely scientific method. They observed the skies, collected data, discovered regularities, and warned the authorities when they knew something bad was about to happen. The astronomers of Assyria and Babylonia, usually called Chaldaeans, are the fathers of science - or at least of the scientific method and the disciplines of astronomy, and, as we shall see below, historiography."

These are not recordings of supernatural events. These are predictions, omens, based on precise recordings of celestial events. Not the same.

The Sky will tell you when a king will die?

Are you into astrology now? I better go look up my horoscope.

Are you telling me you don't see a difference?

[achilles12604]

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.

From http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html :

"The interesting thing is that these predictions were not, like the horoscopes in our newspapers, invented by charlatans. Although the general idea behind Enûma Anu Enlil, that the gods used the planets to show us the future, is wrong, the Mesopotamian astronomers used a purely scientific method. They observed the skies, collected data, discovered regularities, and warned the authorities when they knew something bad was about to happen. The astronomers of Assyria and Babylonia, usually called Chaldaeans, are the fathers of science - or at least of the scientific method and the disciplines of astronomy, and, as we shall see below, historiography."

These are not recordings of supernatural events. These are predictions, omens, based on precise recordings of celestial events. Not the same.

The Sky will tell you when a king will die?

Are you into astrology now? I better go look up my horoscope.

Are you telling me you don't see a difference?

Do I see a difference between astrology and looking to the sky for supernatural omens?


no I am afraid I do not see any difference at all. Just to be sure, let us look up the definition of astrology.

1) The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.

http://www.answers.com/topic/astrology

study of planets and human behavior: the study of the positions of the Moon, Sun, and other planets in the belief that their motions affect human beings

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18615 ... ology.html


No. I am afraid I don't see any difference. Please enlighten me.

What is the difference between astrology and what these tablets did.

[Beto]

If you disregard the sources on Jesus because of the supernatural elements, you must also disregard your Astrological Diaries. Alexanders evidence then falls apart.

From http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diaries/ast ... aries.html :

"The interesting thing is that these predictions were not, like the horoscopes in our newspapers, invented by charlatans. Although the general idea behind Enûma Anu Enlil, that the gods used the planets to show us the future, is wrong, the Mesopotamian astronomers used a purely scientific method. They observed the skies, collected data, discovered regularities, and warned the authorities when they knew something bad was about to happen. The astronomers of Assyria and Babylonia, usually called Chaldaeans, are the fathers of science - or at least of the scientific method and the disciplines of astronomy, and, as we shall see below, historiography."

These are not recordings of supernatural events. These are predictions, omens, based on precise recordings of celestial events. Not the same.

The Sky will tell you when a king will die?

Are you into astrology now? I better go look up my horoscope.

Are you telling me you don't see a difference?

Do I see a difference between astrology and looking to the sky for supernatural omens?


no I am afraid I do not see any difference at all. Just to be sure, let us look up the definition of astrology.

You know I meant the difference between recordings of supernatural events and recordings of omens and predictions based on the observation of celestial events. It was just 4 posts ago.

I must say I'm not impressed with the way you're conducting yourself these last few posts.