Originally posted by no1marauderExcellent point. Without the OT, and with a bit of embelishment of a perhaps extant (and perhaps really nice, and competent) guys life, the bible doesn't amount to too much.
And that is relevant how? Couldn't the same be said about Moses and Abraham in the Old Testament?
Originally posted by no1marauderJust saw your edit now. Abraham and Moses in the OT are more analogous to Achilles in the Iliad than they are to Jesus in the Gospels.
So what? Please see my edit also.
The "so what" is that the Gospels and other 1st cent. Christian writings are far more reliable evidence of the historical existence of Jesus than the Iliad with Achilles or the OT with Abraham/Moses.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour original statement was:
Just saw your edit now. Abraham and Moses in the OT are more analogous to Achilles in the Iliad than they are to Jesus in the Gospels.
The "so what" is that the Gospels and other 1st cent. Christian writings are far more reliable evidence of the historical existence of Jesus than the Iliad with Achilles or the OT with Abraham/Moses.
Btw, are you happy that most historians would be quite satisfied (as they are) with the NT documents as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Now, I asked whether the Illiad was "evidence of a historical Achilles"? Without going into the reliability issue, would you concede that it is evidence of a historical Achilles? The mere fact that "most historians" are "quite satisfied that NT documents" are "evidence" is not the same as saying they believe it establishes the proposition that there was a historical Jesus, is it?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe reliability issue is not separate from the question of whether a particular document constitutes evidence for establishing the truth of a particular proposition.
Your original statement was:
Btw, are you happy that most historians would be quite satisfied (as they are) with the NT documents as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Now, I asked whether the Illiad was "evidence of a historical Achilles"? Without going into the reliability issue, would you concede that it is evidence of a historical ...[text shortened]... ng they believe it establishes the proposition that there was a historical Jesus, is it?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerCan we ever have a discussion without you moving the goalposts? Answer my questions, please. And relevance of evidence is seperate from weight of evidence.
The reliability issue is not separate from the question of whether a particular document constitutes evidence for establishing the truth of a particular proposition.
Originally posted by no1marauderApparently not, as scottishinnz is discovering.
Can we ever have a discussion without you moving the goalposts?
My views, for what they are worth: yes, the Gospels are evidence of an historical Jesus; conclusive evidence, they are not. You can argue until you're blue in the face but you won't get past these obvious facts.
Originally posted by no1marauderBased on the logic you seem to be putting forward, any statement is prima facie evidence for the truth of the proposition it entails.
Your original statement was:
Btw, are you happy that most historians would be quite satisfied (as they are) with the NT documents as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Now, I asked whether the Illiad was "evidence of a historical Achilles"? Without going into the reliability issue, would you concede that it is evidence of a historical ...[text shortened]... ng they believe it establishes the proposition that there was a historical Jesus, is it?
It's clear from the context of this thread that I wasn't just talking about supporting evidence, I was talking about sufficient evidence to make a high-probability judgment that Jesus existed.
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo repeat my post that you've ignored the substance of:
Just because you can't seem to tell the goalpost from the by-line does not mean I'm moving them.
Your original statement was:
Btw, are you happy that most historians would be quite satisfied (as they are) with the NT documents as evidence of a historical Jesus?
Now, I asked whether the Illiad was "evidence of a historical Achilles"? Without going into the reliability issue, would you concede that it is evidence of a historical Achilles? The mere fact that "most historians" are "quite satisfied that NT documents" are "evidence" is not the same as saying they believe it establishes the proposition that there was a historical Jesus, is it?
Your original implication seemed to be that because historians consider NT documents "evidence" of a historical Jesus that is somehow "proof" that there was a historical Jesus. Your posts are NOW discussing the separate issue of the weight of evidence rather than what constitutes "historical evidence". If you wish to change the nexus of the discussion, simply concede that the Illiad is "evidence" of a historical Achilles and we can proceed to the "weight of evidence" issue.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat shows an ignorance of what the term "prima facie" means.
Based on the logic you seem to be putting forward, any statement is prima facie evidence for the truth of the proposition it entails.
It's clear from the context of this thread that I wasn't just talking about supporting evidence, I was talking about sufficient evidence to make a high-probability judgment that Jesus existed.
If you are seriously asserting that most historians make a "high probability judgment" that a historical Jesus existed merely based on NT documents, I'd like to see some support for that extraordinary claim.
EDIT: Perhaps the first sentence is too harsh; in law (my first language now), a "prima facie" case is established by legally relevant evidence, which if believed, would establish every necessary element of a claim. This is admittedly more rigourous then what "prima facie" means in common parlance.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't care what the legal definition for prima facie is - it just means "at first glance" in Latin.
That shows an ignorance of what the term "prima facie" means.
If you are seriously asserting that most historians make a "high probability judgment" that a historical Jesus existed merely based on NT documents, I'd like to see some support for that extraordinary claim.
Re: whether historians consider the NT documents sufficient evidence to establish the historicity of Jesus (which is what "high probability" means), then you just need to look at the article BdN cited earlier in this thread.
EDIT: Besides, I've also mentioned one should look at other 1st cent. non-NT Christian literature as well.
1 edit
Evidence, yes. Sufficient evidence to establish the contention as reliable fact, no. However, Jesus is mentioned in other texts outside, and independent of the Christian texts. Writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus come to mind. It seems likely that a man named Jesus was crucified, and that he had attracted a small, but dedicated group of followers prior to his execution.
Wulebgr
Historian
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrWhy do Christian texts not constitute sufficient evidence, given the time, place and mode of composition?
Evidence, yes. Sufficient evidence to establish the contention as reliable fact, no. However, Jesus is mentioned in other texts outside, and independent of the Christian texts. Writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus come to mind. It seems likely that a man named Jesus was crucified, and that he had attracted a small, but dedicated group of followers prior to his execution.
Wulebgr
Historian
EDIT: What is the competing theory that would impugn their reliability?