Fair enough. Sorry for the hijack.
I would like to use your post to illustrate an important point. To make it simple, I’m going to heavily edit it:
We don’t know any of these things. We don’t know if any of it happened, we don’t know the mindset of anyone. The only thing that has survived to this day is what some dude wrote down. This scribe may have made it up. He may have dreamed it. He may have heard it from oral history. He may have read it in some document we don’t have.
This is true anytime you say “Jesus did or said this…” We don’t know what he did or said, we only know what a single scribe with religious motives wrote.
Well, yeah; it’s true any time you say anybody from before the age of modern recording technology “said or did this.” What other kind of evidence could there be, besides “what some dude wrote down”?
If only one dude’s writings are available, or others exist which most likely drew from this single source, we don’t have any.
But if two or more highly independent sources write about the same persons or events, we have far superior evidence. The more sources, and the more unconnected they are, the better the evidence.
The same principle works today. If there’s only one eyewitness to an event, and his claim to being an eyewitness is dubious, we tend to discount the veracity of his story.
Consider 9/11. We have thousands of pieces of evidence – observers, recordings and physical items – with little reason to believe that each one is merely repeating the story of another. They may not agree on minor points, but they agree on the major ones to a high degree.
The details of the empty-tomb-on-Sunday story, the key story of Christianity, are quite different in the different Gospels. These discrepancies have been cited as reason to believe the accounts were independent and thus based on fact.
You mean independent of God?! That’s blasphemy!
You mean because they are different, this means they are valid? Puleeeeze. If they were the same, would that be evidence that they were not valid?
We’re in the realm of nothing can disprove the theory, even contradictory facts.
Internal evidence is too subject to interpretation. I want external evidence, or it didn’t happen.
Well, yes. If you see two accounts of something that are identical, it would be prudent to presume that that one (or both) of them had been tainted by the other. Two accounts that are fundamentally consistent, but with superficial discrepancies, would tend to suggest that they were independent and, therefore, more likely valid.
And now we’re going in circles.
Yes, of course it would. If they were the same, that would strongly suggest that one was copied from the other (or that they were both copied from a third text) and therefore they are not in fact independent sources. This is why we don’t consider Mt and Lk to be independent sources, and I don’t see you quarrelling with that judgment.
It’s the nature of human testimony that independent accounts of the same events always differ, since each witness to the event has a different subjective experience. Accounts which are identical are (a) not independent or (b) if they purport to be independent, very suspect.
By “external” you mean “external to the sources that are actually interested in the question”?
Back in post 28, you told us you were “neutral as to [Jesus’s] existence”, but now you’re telling us that, unless there’s evidence from places where you wouldn’t expect to find any evidence, “it didn’t happen”.
Odd conception of neutrality, there.
Another mythicist, it seems.
The problem for them is that they’ve got nothing except for some tortured readings, things taken out of context and dubious logic.
I’ve been reading some exchanges between New Testament scholars and Richard Carrier and it’s enlightening. It appears that Carrier is simply preaching to his choir and not making a real effort to convince actual New Testament scholars, which although he’s a historian, he is not.
As I indicated in Frylock’s thread, I love debating things on their merits, but have learned it’s a waste of time attempting to engage apologists, for any cause.
Someone who demands something which they know very well doesn’t exist, or which if they were actually studying the matter should know very well doesn’t exist will not be convinced by anything I say.
Musicat, enjoy your beliefs. Let us know if you are ever interested in an actual discussion.
Not at all. We’re back to the OP. How much independent evidence do we have of Jesus’ existence and life?
Then if two accounts are the same, that means they are valid, and if two accounts are different, that means they are valid. You can’t have it both ways.
Perhaps “separate” might be a better word. Certainly “independent” is what we want. Something external to Source A would be a source that wasn’t intertwined with Source A and not influenced by it.
I’m neutral to Jesus’ existence in a religious sense; I don’t give a fuck if he walked the earth and if he did, that doesn’t mean he had any supernatural powers or was a deity – that would be a separate question. But that doesn’t mean I am gullible enough to take flimsy evidence for any of these things.
If it wasn’t for the religious aspect, a person like Jesus wouldn’t engender much debate – some historians would say it was a myth, some not, and most would admit that proof is slim to none. But, in my theory, an initial story was picked up by others due to wishful thinking and the religious aspect, and the tale grew and grew. If what was added on came from independent sources, it lends credibility to the original. If it did not, no matter how many stories might be written, it does not add any credibility to the original. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” It’s merely fan fiction.
Give me some DIS-confirming evidence – is there anything we know that would make a fictional, or mostly fictional, story unlikely? Otherwise, I’m saying that most people are falling for the idea hook, line, and sinker, just as many people do when they watch a magic show, and for somewhat the same reasons.
There really isn’t anything to discuss with you, is there? You have decided that only evident which you have decided will work and then declared victory when that evidence is not forthcoming. However, you either know that evidence doesn’t exist and are disingenuously asking for it or are completely ignorant of the subject matter and are unable to contribute meaningfully to a discussion.
All or almost all secular New Testament scholars, including atheists, agnostics and nonreligious, believe that the evidence we have supports the historical nature of Jesus.
You discuss magic shows, in which people watch knowing it’s just a show. A better analogy would be adherents to Young Earth Creationism who believe something without looking into the facts. But the ones who are guilty of this are not the people who you think.
What’s an example of such an exchange, i.e., one where you think it’s clear the NT scholar is making good points and Carrier is failing to adequately respond to them (which I take is what you’re saying happens in these exchanges).
You can’t argue with the C14 content in fossilized bone.
You certainly can with the historical validity of religious allegory.
I refer you to post 33, in which I listed five sources that appear to be independent of one another - Josephus, Paul, Mark, Q, John.
That’s right, I can’t. Nor am I trying to. I’ve said as clearly as I possibly can that two accounts which are the same are not independent of one another, and if they purport to be independent accounts their validity is extremely suspect. How can you not grasp this?
Yes. And we seem to have five of those.
We’ve got five independent sources that Jesus walked the earth, all of them within a century of the time, and probably four of them within the lifetimes of people who would have been contemporaries of Jesus. Your characterisation of this as “flimsy” evidence is what makes me doubt your neutrality; by the standards applied by historians of the period, this is a very strong case. We have much stronger evidence for Jesus, for example, than we do for Plato (as already pointed out in this thread) or Alexander the Great.
If it weren’t for the religious aspect, nobody would ask the question. But I have to disagree with you that “most historians would say that proof is slim to none”, unless you’re using “proof” in a very strict sense, such that you would say that the proof for most of the figures from the classical period who are commonly accepted as having existed is slim to none. Your theory, that an initial story was picked up by others, is possible, but is not supported by the evidence - it requires an awful lot of unevidenced assumptions. There is no evidence that any of the five sources I have listed was influenced by, or was even aware of, any of the others, whereas your theory requires that they were. And the fact that, in this thread, in laying out your theory you have done things like suggest that Mark was influenced by Q, or that Paul read Q, which are not only unevidenced but wildly improbable, does suggest that you apply a different standard when assessing the mythicist theory from the standard you apply when assessing the historicist theory. And that’s not neutral.
To my mind, the main thing that makes a wholly fictional story unlikely is that Mark and Paul (at least) were both writing at a time when there were many people alive who would also have been alive at the supposed time of Jesus’ public ministry and execution. And, at this time, there are already communities of followers of Jesus in towns and cities throughout the region. (Paul is writing to them.) If the whole thing was fictional, many people would know from their own knowledge that it had to be fictional, and you could expect somebody to point this out, and we’ve have some record of controversy about that. (We have plenty of evidence of other controversies.} Plus, to maintain a plausible theory that the whole thing is fictional, you’d need some colourable reason to explain why the author would create such an easily falsified story. If they were making it up, they could easily have set the events a generation earlier, so that they were much less easily falsified. Why didn’t they?
There are other arguments, too, such as the “embarrassment criterion”. For example, it would suit the evangelists very well if Jesus was known as Jesus of Bethlehem - two of them go to considerable (and improbable) lengths to locate his birth in Bethlehem, for theological reasons. Awkwardly, he is known as Jesus of Nazareth. The parsimonious explanation for this is that he was in fact known as Jesus of Nazareth, and this was too well-established for the evangelists to pretend otherwise - but that explanation does require him to have been a historical figure. If he wasn’t, then we need to invent a speculative and entirely unevidenced explanation for why his creators choose to call him Jesus of Nazareth. Similarly, the baptism of Jesus by John is embarrassing - it points to Jesus has having been a disciple of John, which is not consistent with his having been the incarnation of God, or the Son of God or, arguably, even with his having been the Messiah. But two of our five sources record that Jesus was baptised by John and, again, the most likely explanation for this is that it was true, and already too well-known to be denied.
The bottom line is that it is possible to construct a theory to the effect that Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character. But the theory is unevidenced, and has to involve a number of fairly improbable speculations. Unless we are judging that theory by much more relaxed standards than the ones we apply to the theory that he is a historical character, we are very unlikely to conclude that it is more probable.
Heh. You’ve opened a new world of possibilities to me. To my high school graduation announcement, I’ll add some words to the effect that I was valedictorian, captain of the football team, and voted most likely to succeed, in spite of a scandal involving several cheerleaders. To the announcement in my local paper that I had graduated from basic training at Ft. Lewis, I’ll add some words about how I performed so impressively that I was immediately promoted for four star general, and named chairman of the JCS.
And don’t get me started on my corporate career.
And what evidence do you have for this claim? If the synoptic gospels were written during the middle of the 1st Century - as even the most pessimistic scholars claim, Matthew could well have been written by an eye-witness. Mark, though possibly not a eye-witness, is sometimes thought of as having acted as Peter’s ‘secretary’ as it were, with Peter dictating his memories. Luke, as a non-Jew, would have been an independent reporter, and probably closer to Jesus’ time than either of the other two, since he accompanied Paul on many of his travels.
To say that stuff wasn’t written at the time of Jesus’ death - a common accusation - doesn’t mean that stuff wasn’t written by eye-witnesses. Recently, the last British survivor of the 1st World War died. He didn’t start writing down his memories until about 10 years before his death. I suppose you’re going to suggest that, as there was 1) large amounts of documentation already in the public domain and 2) that this wasn’t written down until 75/80 years after the events it portrays a) it isn’t independent and b) it isn’t eyewitness.
And you can be certain that the Gospels were originally NOT independent of a religious source?
Yes…unless you are using a definition of “independent of a religious source” that I’ve never heard before.