1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour statement is still incorrect; any "evidence" at all is not sufficient to make someone believe something at first glance. If someone told me that Bigfoot had stolen his wife, that would be "evidence" that Bigfoot existed, but I would hardly take it at face value even at "first glance". One of the reasons why law is attractive to me is that it is more precise in its terminology than common (mis)usage.
I don't care what the legal definition for prima facie is - it just means "at first glance" in Latin.
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.
You have this annoying habit of quoting one or two articles and then making sweeping assertions about what "historians" believe. I can find nothing that says Jeffery Lowder, the author of the piece, is an academic historian. Even if he were, the piece is his opinion, entitled to some weight, but obviously not proof of what the majority of historians believe.
Originally posted by no1marauderLaw may be more precise, but that doesn't make common usage a "mis-usage". They're two different contexts ("language games", Wittgenstein would say) that have different rules.
Your statement is still incorrect; any "evidence" at all is not sufficient to make someone believe something at first glance. If someone told me that Bigfoot had stolen his wife, that would be "evidence" that Bigfoot existed, but I would hardly take it at face value even at "first glance". One of the reasons why law is attractive to me is that it is more precise in its terminology than common (mis)usage.
Fine, maybe the majority of historians do not believe the NT documents (and, for the purposes of this discussion, I want to include other 1st cent. Christian documents as well - if you want to call that moving the goalposts, so be it) constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of Jesus. Nevertheless, I would assert* that the majority of historians do not doubt the historical existence of Jesus. Do you want to dispute that claim?
---
* And, if I'm wrong, I'll change my mind.
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. They are not eyewitness accounts produced at the time of the events. They were produced decades, or even a century after the events in question.
Why do Christian texts not constitute sufficient evidence, given the time, place and mode of composition?
EDIT: What is the competing theory that would impugn their reliability?
2, The texts were not produced by disinterested observers. They were written by members of a cult that requires belief in Jesus.
If I tell you about my fishing hole, and my fishing partner confirms my story, and we tell you this ten years after the fishing trip because we are trying to convince you to go fishing with us there, what reason do you have for believing my fishing story?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI didn't say common usage was a mis-usage; I just said your usage was. The point is fairly minor.
Law may be more precise, but that doesn't make common usage a "mis-usage". They're two different contexts ("language games", Wittgenstein would say) that have different rules.
Fine, maybe the majority of historians do not believe the NT documents (and, for the purposes of this discussion, I want to include other 1st cent. Christian documents as wel ...[text shortened]... us. Do you want to dispute that claim?
---
* And, if I'm wrong, I'll change my mind.
I would say that the statement that most historians believe there was a historical person akin to Jesus who lived early in the first century in Palestine would be the most correct one (perhaps that needs to be qualified to most "Western" historians; I don't know what Chinese or Japanese historians, for example, believe). Do you accept my formulation? Of course, the fact that most historians "believe" something at a certain time is not sufficient for me. As I have stated in another thread I believe it is up to individuals to make informed judgments based on the totality of evidence. I'm more interested in the reasons why something should be believed rather than the number of people who believe it.
Originally posted by WulebgrI may not believe your fishing story (if it's too fantastic) - but why would I doubt you and your friend went fishing at all?
1. They are not eyewitness accounts produced at the time of the events. They were produced decades, or even a century after the events in question.
2, The texts were not produced by disinterested observers. They were written by members of a cult that requires belief in Jesus.
If I tell you about my fishing hole, and my fishing partner confirms my story ...[text shortened]... onvince you to go fishing with us there, what reason do you have for believing my fishing story?
Originally posted by no1marauderI have no problems with that formulation. The only thing I'd say is that some times you have to recognise what is and is not within your field of expertise.
I didn't say common usage was a mis-usage; I just said your usage was. The point is fairly minor.
I would say that the statement that most historians believe there was a historical person akin to Jesus who lived early in the first century in Palestine would be the most correct one (perhaps that needs to be qualified to most "Western" historians; ...[text shortened]... reasons why something should be believed rather than the number of people who believe it.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd you also have to recognize what are the limits of a "field of expertise". And recognize that some things accepted by the majority even in their field of expertise is still hotly debated by others. And quite often, the minority have been proven "correct" (or "more correct"😉. I would also say that this specific question is still considered very much an open one (by historians, too).
I have no problems with that formulation. The only thing I'd say is that some times you have to recognise what is and is not within your field of expertise.