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?

[Goat]

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

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.

N?

Please demonstrate this. Please show why we should accept the supernatural claims.
Please demonstrate that they are eye witness accounts.

[achilles12604]

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

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.

N?

Please demonstrate this. Please show why we should accept the supernatural claims.
Please demonstrate that they are eye witness accounts.

I finished my statement by writing . . .

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 then wrote . . .

Furrowed Brow wrote:


achilles wrote:
I say the Gospels ARE a biography, eyewitness accounts and therefore first hand information on par with your archaeology.

You are saying they are true. And this has been the common discontent throughout the various threads. It is you who are wanting to take the evidence somewhere beyond what it can support, and it is you who are editing out the alternative false possibilities when addressing the evidence.

And the reason we cannot say whether the Gospels area hagiography, lie or biography is for the very lack of any external corroborating evidence.


This is another side topic as we are not discussing the validity or accuracy of the evidence but rather comparing the evidences place in history. But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

Once again I would disagree. We do have outside corroborating evidence. We have the TF, which I still hold is not a full insertion but rather is a re-working of the original which is found in the Arabic translation. We also have the documented beliefs of the Nazarenes, who were alive and believing during the first 5 or so years. We also have the writings of Paul, which went uncontested dispite the fact that the early disciples were still alive at this time. And we have the writings of ACTS, which is congruent with historians like Josephus, and archeology which you so love.

Taken together, and referencing the time frame similar to that of Socrates, I think it that the events recorded in the Gospels are accurate.

BUT AGAIN, this is a side topic as we are addressing the evidence itself, not the validity of it's content. Unless of course you are willing to support the various "styles" of Socrates represented in the various accounts of him.

Please do note Goat that once again you are trying to take this thread off topic. Just as with the existence issue, start a new topic.

[Goat]

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

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.

N?

Please demonstrate this. Please show why we should accept the supernatural claims.
Please demonstrate that they are eye witness accounts.

I finished my statement by writing . . .

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 then wrote . . .

Furrowed Brow wrote:


achilles wrote:
I say the Gospels ARE a biography, eyewitness accounts and therefore first hand information on par with your archaeology.

You are saying they are true. And this has been the common discontent throughout the various threads. It is you who are wanting to take the evidence somewhere beyond what it can support, and it is you who are editing out the alternative false possibilities when addressing the evidence.

And the reason we cannot say whether the Gospels area hagiography, lie or biography is for the very lack of any external corroborating evidence.


This is another side topic as we are not discussing the validity or accuracy of the evidence but rather comparing the evidences place in history. But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

Once again I would disagree. We do have outside corroborating evidence. We have the TF, which I still hold is not a full insertion but rather is a re-working of the original which is found in the Arabic translation. We also have the documented beliefs of the Nazarenes, who were alive and believing during the first 5 or so years. We also have the writings of Paul, which went uncontested dispite the fact that the early disciples were still alive at this time. And we have the writings of ACTS, which is congruent with historians like Josephus, and archeology which you so love.

Taken together, and referencing the time frame similar to that of Socrates, I think it that the events recorded in the Gospels are accurate.

BUT AGAIN, this is a side topic as we are addressing the evidence itself, not the validity of it's content. Unless of course you are willing to support the various "styles" of Socrates represented in the various accounts of him.

Please do note Goat that once again you are trying to take this thread off topic. Just as with the existence issue, start a new topic.

No, I am not. I am asking to prove your claim. You make a claim, which is the basis for your conclusions, but you do not provide evidence for that claim. If your claim is false (which I believe it is), then, your conclusions are false.

[achilles12604]

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

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.

N?

Please demonstrate this. Please show why we should accept the supernatural claims.
Please demonstrate that they are eye witness accounts.

I finished my statement by writing . . .

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 then wrote . . .

Furrowed Brow wrote:


achilles wrote:
I say the Gospels ARE a biography, eyewitness accounts and therefore first hand information on par with your archaeology.

You are saying they are true. And this has been the common discontent throughout the various threads. It is you who are wanting to take the evidence somewhere beyond what it can support, and it is you who are editing out the alternative false possibilities when addressing the evidence.

And the reason we cannot say whether the Gospels area hagiography, lie or biography is for the very lack of any external corroborating evidence.


This is another side topic as we are not discussing the validity or accuracy of the evidence but rather comparing the evidences place in history. But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

Once again I would disagree. We do have outside corroborating evidence. We have the TF, which I still hold is not a full insertion but rather is a re-working of the original which is found in the Arabic translation. We also have the documented beliefs of the Nazarenes, who were alive and believing during the first 5 or so years. We also have the writings of Paul, which went uncontested dispite the fact that the early disciples were still alive at this time. And we have the writings of ACTS, which is congruent with historians like Josephus, and archeology which you so love.

Taken together, and referencing the time frame similar to that of Socrates, I think it that the events recorded in the Gospels are accurate.

BUT AGAIN, this is a side topic as we are addressing the evidence itself, not the validity of it's content. Unless of course you are willing to support the various "styles" of Socrates represented in the various accounts of him.

Please do note Goat that once again you are trying to take this thread off topic. Just as with the existence issue, start a new topic.

No, I am not. I am asking to prove your claim. You make a claim, which is the basis for your conclusions, but you do not provide evidence for that claim. If your claim is false (which I believe it is), then, your conclusions are false.

Furrowed Brow made his claim first. Why aren't you asking him to prove his opinions?

[Goat]

Furrowed Brow made his claim first. Why aren't you asking him to prove his opinions?

Because, he very clearly showed what that argument was, showed it was a logic problem , was very precise in what he meant, and was not making any unwarranted assumptions.

Now, if you could come with EVIDENCE that his analysis was wrong.. by showing one of the items he was using for his 'yes/no' ,and 'yes/yes' analysis, go for it. however, he laid out what evidence he was basing his judgment on quite clearly. You have just built straw man at attacked them.

[Furrowed Brow]

Achilles I think we need to clear away some of the debris from multiple threads. From the last couple of posts I’m getting the sense you are reading me completely wrong.

First off I am actually disappointed at this post because it is frankly untrue. I am actually surprised, and confused because this is not normally your style.

Ouch! I can’t let that one lie. So lets look at the details of who said what and when, and the logical implications.

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.

Okay this point from where I am standing contains a huge unwarranted assumption. the asumption beingthat it is safe to treat Christian texts as biographies - and this point is at the heart of the issue. A point I came back on a couple of times.

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 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 (sic) of the authors in the context of the times they are writing, and the movement they are writing for. Everything else is moot.

This last paragraph is central because it expresses a theme that has been running through near all my posts.

Now lets break that paragraph down. I pull you up on your assumption that the Gospels are a biography and point out they are a hagiography, a fabrication or…then leave space for emphasis…..a biography. The paragraph allows all three possibilities and is rebutting the idea that it is possible to decide which. I then add one qualification,

• 1/ Written by people out to promote their movement.

Again true. I add the qualification to try and draw you away from the limited conclusion they are a biography at the expense of dismissing the alternatives. But I draw no conclusion, other than to say

• 2/ the texts are excellent evidence for revealing thoughts, aims intentions (arggh out of control spell checker).

And this next point sums up my point

• 3/ everything else is moot.

So, let P = biography, Q = hagiography, R = lie. We cannot validly conclude P, we can only conclude P or Q or R. That is the logical form of the argument. So 1 and 2 do not change the logical implication of the opening “not P, but P or Q or R” sentence, and only work to support the logical implication of the opening retort which is that the Gospels are not a biography - but are possibly a hagiography or a fabrication or a biography. I do not say nor imply that the Gospels cannot be a biography, I only deny the validity of drawing this soul conclusion based on the evidence we have.

I think the problem is again you are conflating my personal stance - for indeed I do believe the Gospels are a lie- with my attempt to engage with your point that my argument results from my anti supernaturalism “bias”. Repeatedly all my posts of recent days have worked towards showing you the invalid inferences and unwarranted assumptions you are making, purely based on the evidence we actually have and the logical terrain of the problem.

So I was a bit surprised when you responded with….

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

Because the paragraph contains no unwarranted assumptions. And then you repeat your basic point they are a biography - P - and reaffirmed your assumption, but with apparent little recognition this ignores the more cautious and valid P or Q or R .

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

So when we get to…

First off I am actually disappointed at this post because it is frankly untrue. I am actually surprised, and confused because this is not normally your style.

….you are going to have underline which bit of my response at 115 is untrue, or a misrepresentation of the logical implication of the argument…and which bit was in anyway misleading, evasive ora dirty trick.

Why did you omit what you actually wrote in favour of wording with entirely different implications?

I omitted nothing that changed the sense or the implication of what I said. That you are seeing something that is not there is troubling. I meant what I said and said what I meant and thought the implications were clear. However, maybe this will help us move forward, because I think it is a clear indication as to how you are misreading and misunderstranding your critics.So, I am happy if not eager to beat this one into the ground until we come to a satisfactory understanding.

[Furrowed Brow]

But as you have brought it up, first let me point out that we have the exact same problem with Socrates. He is painted with different brushes by each of his sources. Alexander has this problem in spades as Plutarch differs greatly from Diodous.

Please please do not make me go back and cut and paste all the times have I said I am non committal about the existence of Socrates, and do not infer existence, or that he drank hemlock, or other cited details of Socrates putative life.

As for external corroboration, at least you are not longer claiming we "have no evidence." Now it is "we have no corroborative evidence."

No longer claiming? Hmmm. Achilles I have just reread all my posts back to page 3 just to make sure I had not let a loose phrase slip in the heat of the moment. Maybe I have said something to that affect elsewhere but not here - I suspect I have not said it elsewhere either. If you can find where I say that then please point me to it and we can review. If you review my posts you will find I have steered a consistent line …..

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 you have yes-yes evidence that is stronger than yes-no evidence, and yes-no evidence needs further corroboration.

All the evidence for JC is yes/no evidence.

we have no yes/yes evidence at all for JC in the right time right location.

But when we come to the case of JC, we lack any external supporting evidence. In this sense the JC evidence is seriously weaker…..but in the case of JC, these questions are more pressing because there is a complete lack of meaningful external corroboration.

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.

With some corroborating evidence we can then begin to discern myth from possible truth

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.

There is a complete lack of primary source evidence.

Actually that gives quite a neat summary of my argument.

Once again I would disagree. We do have outside corroborating evidence. We have the TF, which I still hold is not a full insertion but rather is a re-working of the original which is found in the Arabic translation. We also have the documented beliefs of the Nazarenes, who
Unless of course you are willing to support the various "styles" of Socrates represented in the various accounts of him.

1) The TF supports some of the events in the Gospels
2) The beliefs of the Nazarenes (very PRE-Gospel) support some of the events in the Gospels
3) The writings of Paul (again pre-Gospel) support some of the events
4) Acts supports some of the events (again pre-Gospel)
5) Tacitus supports some of the events in the Gospels (and is MUCH closer than ANY of Alexander's sources)

All yes/no evidence. All can be queried and interpreted in a different light. It is only possible to assume the accuracy of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 by assuming their accuracy. This is the circle you keep going round in. There is another legitimate and pressing interpretation that leaves 1 to 5 the perpetuation of a myth. You have no valid argument to go from 1-5, to 1-5 are true.

Ok. How trustworthy are the writings of Alexander? How much are we SURE about his life other than he existed and conquered and was a big shot?

Tell me, were the writers of Alexander correct when they cited the Battle of Gaugamela and how the king left his troops?

AAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I need an emoticon that blows its brains out.

Ok, well if you are willing to disregard Socrates for the same reasons as JC, what are we arguing about?

Okay. Put a hold on the emoticon. Ahhhhh! That feels better.

From a logical point of view I am cautious about Socrates. However one clear advantage of Socrates of JC is the dating of Clouds. But I’m non committal.

Do you agree that they have roughly the same value of evidence?

No. Because there is a legitimate and pressing interpretation of the Gospels as embellishment, that does not obtain in the case of S. Lets assume S did exist. We have still to ascertain whether S killed himself and whether the method really was hemlock. Whilst these points are moot we have no major or obvious motivations for xen to go making the stuff up. Unless, he was applying some dramatic licence. If we assume a real J, then the dramatic licence is exponentially larger for a young religious movement seeking to spread and grow. Yes - I know you disagree with that stance, but as ever the point is that the legend creation interpretation is compelling, and thus sets the Gospels and Paul in a different light. That is not to say the matter is decided, only that the logical terrain is different.

Before I dive into 40, answer the question above as if you agree that Socrates, JC and Alexander all have pluses and minuses to their historical evidence and that they are on similar footing, we have nothing more to argue about.

Socrates - only yes/no evidence. Non committal to Socrates existence. However Clouds is right time right location. No obvious reasons for embellishments if Socrates existed. Commitment to a real Socrates does not require ignoring a major competing anti thesis.

Alexander - some yes/yes evidence. Right time and right location evidence. Artefacts etc. Affirmative to Alex’s existence. As for the fine details of the campaigns, battle successes etc…moot.

JC - only yes/no evidence. No right time right location evidence. Obvious embellishment motivations present leading to a compelling anti thesis. Non committal to existence of a real Jesus. However any commitment to a real wonderous JC requires ignoring compelling anti-thesis.

what are we arguing about?

I think the answer to that question is important. We are arguing about how we should approach the evidence. What counts as a valid inference. And what commitments we can make given the nature of the evidence. And what logical terrain we have to take in as a real possibility.

[Fallibleone]

AAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! I need an emoticon that blows its brains out.

Okay. Put a hold on the emoticon. Ahhhhh! That feels better.

[Solon]

A note on the word 'hagiography'. It was originally used to describe images of saints, 'hagiology' was the term for biographies of the saints. It seems the terms have merged over the years with hagiology dropping out of popular use. While biographers and historians may choose to use hagiography in a pejorative sense, all it really is is a biography of someone considered holy. A hagiography is a subset of biography, classified by the subject.

There is admittedly a bias on the part of someone writing about a person they consider holy, but assuming they will lie outright in their work is excessively cynical in my eyes, and not a useful way to go about doing a study of history. (Not that I don't have cynical tendencies) I would say to read it with caution, and to verify as much as possible from other sources. (Which is common sense)

If all there is is a hagiography with no other supporting evidence after much searching then it becomes somewhat more suspect. The particular case of the Gospels is especially tricky as the works in question are also considered scriptural rather than simply instructional. This adds to any possible bias as we do not have any copies dated earlier than at least 100 years after the autographs, by which time they were considered religious texts.

Achilles, this is one of the reasons I have a different absolute value for the credibility of the Gospels than you, except as evidence that there was a guy named Jesus running about in the 1st century A.D. (Someone earlier suggested possibly three I believe, though I haven't done quite that much research myself)

There are uses of 'hagiography' that I find incorrect and misleading that rob the word of meaning. Such as when referring to a biography of a person, not otherwise considered holy, which ignores faults and is excessively positive. That is not a hagiography that is a bad biography, the subject determines the former and content the latter, though a hagiography can be both.

[Furrowed Brow]

There are uses of 'hagiography' that I find incorrect and misleading that rob the word of meaning. Such as when referring to a biography of a person, not otherwise considered holy, which ignores faults and is excessively positive. That is not a hagiography that is a bad biography, the subject determines the former and content the latter, though a hagiography can be both.

I was using hagiography to mean a biography which raises the subject to the level of holy, whilst editing out or ignoring any negative points which I might contradict that. So I guess I was using the word as you mean - bad biography.