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]

Something I have noticed during this thread is that Goat, and yourself have steered this thread towards the issue of existence.

This is true. The way I see it there are two issues. And they have an order of priority

• 1/ Was there an actual person behind the rendition.
  2/ How accurately any rendition of their life is.

If one is answered in the negative then 2 is automatically answered - not at all accurate. If we answer 1 positively then we still are left with trying to make the most sense of 2.

This means nothing unless you are saying that you doubt the very existence of a man about whom the religion of Christianity was formed. If you are willing to doubt his existence, then we should really be starting a wee bit further back. This thread is focused more on the second part of your list.

Again here you focus on EXISTENCE. But what percentage of history is concerned with discovering who existed vs. what percentage is concerned with WHAT HAPPENED?

This I find a tad confusion. Some characters we can cut out of renditions of history without significantly changing the general themes and power plays, and accounts of events. However, if the battle of Grancius happened and Alex did not exists, that would change our understanding of history. If JC did not exist then that would alter our understanding of Christianity wholesale.

I absolutely agree. However with every discussion we must have some common ground upon which to start and I assumed (and implied via the OP) that the mere existence of these individuals was that common ground.

You imply with the above quote that you too accept the existence of someone cerca 0CE which we can label as "Jesus". Hence my assumption was a safe one.

Once again, if you want to change topics to determine if Jesus probably did or did not exist we can certainly do so. But you are starting to send up a smoke screen in an attempt to cloud the OP's issue, namely a comparison of the evidence.

Would you prefer to drop this topic and take up whether or not Jesus existed?

And what would a document in 2/3 say? Behold some kid who isn't even a teenager yet?
Remember that Jesus time of fame and importance lasted about what . . . 3 years? 4?

I don’t know. But if you had additional evidence eearliers than what you have and external - anything - then we can revisit what you got and revaluate.

External I think is being established nicely by Goat and I in the TF. Also you are again assuming a negative outcome for this very thread. Namely, if the writings of slightly later people can not be included, then we must also trash Alexander and Socrates.

You have hit this thread right on the nose with this post. In fact, if we were attempting to examine the lives of Alexander and Socrates as critically as you do with Jesus, I could have written exactly what you have.



"But if you had additional evidence (earlier) than what you have and external - anything - then we can revisit what you got and reevaluate."

This is exactly the point I make concerning Socrates. What do we actually learn about the man from Clouds? You have admitted yourself nothing. Clouds only stands as evidence of existence. NOTHING MORE.

How about Alexander? What do we really learn from those tablets? Basically nothing except that there was a battle. How about all the archeology?

Tell me, how much do we know about stone hedge? How about easter Island?

Nothing? . . . . .

But wait . . . we have archeology from both those places.


Do you get my point yet? You outlined it perfectly in the above quote.

THEREFORE: (and this goes all the way back to the OP) we must examine each category of evidence against similar evidence for the other person. You cling so desperately to archaeology yet fail to recognize that archaeology tells us very little about Alexander's actions and life, and simultaneously archaeology is not even applicable to Jesus or Socrates, and is therefore impossible to compare or contrast with either of these men.

Well first off don’t knock archaeology. It ain’t so bad.

I agree. However what can you tell us about stone hedge? Easter Island?

You and Goat parade around Alexander's archeology like it is the all telling Oracle about his life, but in reality, it tells us NOTHING without the written word of his life's account. What value is archeology taken blindly?

None.

And I also remind you that we have no archeology about Socrates.

Third, what the heck have we been butting heads over?

What we are butting heads over is the fact that the purpose of this entire thread is to examine the value of the various evidences when placed side by side. You have turned this into a thread about the existence of Jesus, which BTW is plenty well established by historical standards. Would you like to start a new thread about Jesus existence or shall we compare the evidences for these three persons to establish the foolishness of continuing to demand unreasonable evidence and then touting this as "proof" against the validity of Jesus or his teachings?

[achilles12604]

Furrowed Brow - As I mentioned we are starting to slide towards an "existence" thread and this is far from the purpose of this thread. Let us return to my thus far unanswered post.

Where are my following conclusions inaccurate?

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.

[Furrowed Brow]

You imply with the above quote that you too accept the existence of someone cerca 0CE which we can label as "Jesus". Hence my assumption was a safe one.

Once again, if you want to change topics to determine if Jesus probably did or did not exist we can certainly do so. But you are starting to send up a smoke screen in an attempt to cloud the OP's issue, namely a comparison of the evidence.

Well no. I’ve been focused on the two questions.

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

I answered the first with Pilate’s stone, and I offered a methodology as to why we can address the stone and make a reasonable assumption to the existence of Pilate. The same can be said to the artefacts for Alex. This is superior evidence to the existence of the subject. We can then treat other evidence in the case of writings as evidence of someone trying to offer information about the existing subject. Any delay - whilst important - weighs less because we have artefacts that give us a real person right time right location. So the enquiry is one of how accurately is Alex or PP portrayed. But when we come to the case of JC, we lack any external supporting evidence. In this sense the JC evidence is seriously weaker. If we then assume the existence of Jesus as a starting point, we still have to factor in the prejudices and motivations of the authors, the time of authorship, the sources used by the authors etc. We factor these questions in to the evaluation of the writings about Alex, but in the case of JC, these questions are more pressing because there is a complete lack of meaningful external corroboration. To then treat the written texts of the Gospels, and Paul as evidence of a real life is one option, but one which fails to to address the counter "lie and/or embellishment" interpretation of the very same evidence.

If someone dug up a record of crucifixion kept by the Romans that clearly stated that PP crucified a Jewish Rabbi by name of Jesus who was known as a wonder worker, then a large element of the questions regarding the motivation of the authors would be alleviated and then we can treat the writings of the Gospels on equal terms of any posthumous hagiography of Alex. But we are not even at that point. The external evidence does not have to be so precise, but anything that can be reasonably shown to be external will work towards quelling the counter interpretation. There is no bias here, here if there were no artefacts for Alex, then the figure of Alex would be treated on a par as that of......Achilles.

[achilles12604]

You imply with the above quote that you too accept the existence of someone cerca 0CE which we can label as "Jesus". Hence my assumption was a safe one.

Once again, if you want to change topics to determine if Jesus probably did or did not exist we can certainly do so. But you are starting to send up a smoke screen in an attempt to cloud the OP's issue, namely a comparison of the evidence.

Well no. I’ve been focused on the two questions.

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

I answered the first with Pilate’s stone, and I offered a methodology as to why we can address the stone and make a reasonable assumption to the existence of Pilate. The same can be said to the artefacts for Alex. This is superior evidence to the existence of the subject. We can then treat other evidence in the case of writings as evidence of someone trying to offer information about the existing subject. Any delay - whilst important - weighs less because we have artefacts that give us a real person right time right location. So the enquiry is one of how accurately is Alex or PP portrayed. But when we come to the case of JC, we lack any external supporting evidence. In this sense the JC evidence is seriously weaker.

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 also written by a follower of Socrates if I am not mistaken and is therefore not external but rather was the equavalent of a very early Gospel, and not a very good or complete one at that.

Alexander? He has archeology. We would certainly expect this. But outside of confirming his existence, what does the archeology tell us? Remember that we also have archeology for Easter Island and Stone Hedge but we no nothing about either of them.

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

If we then assume the existence of Jesus as a starting point, we still have to factor in the prejudices and motivations of the authors, the time of authorship, the sources used by the authors etc. We factor these questions in to the evaluation of the writings about Alex, but in the case of JC, these questions are more pressing because there is a complete lack of meaningful external corroboration.

Again I ask you. Since you are relying on meaningful external corroboration to make your argument, what meaningful external corroboration do you have for Socrates or Alexander?

Thus far you have cited clouds (neither external nor meaningful) and archeology (external, but hardly meaningful by itself).

Let us keep the demands fair and see how the other two measure up. A list of the external, meaningful corroborating evidences for each will be sufficent.

If someone dug up a record of crucifixion kept by the Romans that clearly stated that PP crucified a Jewish Rabbi by name of Jesus who was known as a wonder worker, then a large element of the questions regarding the motivation of the authors would be alleviated and then we can treat the writings of the Gospels on equal terms of any posthumous hagiography of Alex.

Did roman's keep crucifixion records?


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

But we are not even at that point. The external evidence does not have to be so precise, but anything that can be reasonably shown to be external will work towards quelling the counter interpretation. There is no bias here, here if there were no artefacts for Alex, then the figure of Alex would be treated on a par as that of......Achilles.

Nice allusion.

Let us determine the fairness of your demands. I feel that this point you brought up is a wonderful example and os we can certainly focus on it for a bit. A list of meaningful, external corroborating evidence would be nice for Socrates and Alexander. This will assist us in establishing what is exceptable evidence towards this end.

[McCulloch]

Consequences, Achilles, consequences. I am willing to look at evidence that Jesus, Alexander, Socrates, King Arthur or Peter Pan either existed or did not. If you could make a strong case for the existence of King Priam, then I would provisionally believe that he existed. I would not insist that faith in him would bring me an eternal afterlife. Perhaps there was a person or persons upon whom the Jesus myth was built on.

[achilles12604]

Consequences, Achilles, consequences. I am willing to look at evidence that Jesus, Alexander, Socrates, King Arthur or Peter Pan either existed or did not. If you could make a strong case for the existence of King Priam, then I would provisionally believe that he existed. I would not insist that faith in him would bring me an eternal afterlife. Perhaps there was a person or persons upon whom the Jesus myth was built on.

So the evidence can be read differently depending upon someone's personal level of caring? I thought we were supposed to approach all evidence equally? Hence this thread.

[McCulloch]

Consequences, Achilles, consequences. I am willing to look at evidence that Jesus, Alexander, Socrates, King Arthur or Peter Pan either existed or did not. If you could make a strong case for the existence of King Priam, then I would provisionally believe that he existed. I would not insist that faith in him would bring me an eternal afterlife. Perhaps there was a person or persons upon whom the Jesus myth was built on.

So the evidence can be read differently depending upon someone's personal level of caring? I thought we were supposed to approach all evidence equally? Hence this thread.

Not exactly. If you told me that a Jewish religious leader named Jesus was crucified by the Romans sometime in the fourth decade, I would not require a whole lot of evidence. I think there might be evidence of three or so. But if you also claimed that the same Jesus was the only begotten son of the creator of the universe, and that he rose from the dead and did other magic tricks, I might expect a higher level of evidence.

As it is, I remain agnostic about the existence of an historical Jesus. The miracle producing, god-man of the Gospels who preached a revolutionary truth, stirred up the Jewish establishment towards murderous hatred but was killed by their mortal enemies the Romans I find quite easy to reject on the lack of evidence.

[achilles12604]

Consequences, Achilles, consequences. I am willing to look at evidence that Jesus, Alexander, Socrates, King Arthur or Peter Pan either existed or did not. If you could make a strong case for the existence of King Priam, then I would provisionally believe that he existed. I would not insist that faith in him would bring me an eternal afterlife. Perhaps there was a person or persons upon whom the Jesus myth was built on.

So the evidence can be read differently depending upon someone's personal level of caring? I thought we were supposed to approach all evidence equally? Hence this thread.

Not exactly. If you told me that a Jewish religious leader named Jesus was crucified by the Romans sometime in the fourth decade, I would not require a whole lot of evidence. I think there might be evidence of three or so. But if you also claimed that the same Jesus was the only begotten son of the creator of the universe, and that he rose from the dead and did other magic tricks, I might expect a higher level of evidence.

As it is, I remain agnostic about the existence of an historical Jesus. The miracle producing, god-man of the Gospels who preached a revolutionary truth, stirred up the Jewish establishment towards murderous hatred but was killed by their mortal enemies the Romans I find quite easy to reject on the lack of evidence.

Ok. But right now we are examining the various evidences and their comparitive values. We are not examining the plausibility of the "correctness" of the evidences. Are you objections not actually an entirely different thread?

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

Alexander? He has archaeology.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. Just as Troy has been reinterpreted as real since 1871. We have nothing that works for a real JC. If there was a real Jesus, the best we can say is that he started a religious cult movement that began to put their message and symbolic stories in writing some 50 to 60 years after his death. But was he really crucified? Was there a Trojan horse?

For Alex we have artefacts + writings. For JC we have writings.

[Solon]

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.