Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]
So there ya go.

[/ QUOTE ]

that settles it then.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes its a popular belief that jesus existed and has been for some time.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You take all my hard thought analysis and reduce it to, "its a popular belief and has been for some time"? Or are you saying that's how Sklansky would estimate the probability?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't a popular belief then do you think DS would give it a high probability? Would you bet on it then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My Sklansky Probabilty Meter works a bit differently than David's. He can speak for himself on how his would work here. Although there might be a subliminal influence, I'm doing my best to exclude the popularity factor from my estimate. I certainly did not mention it in my post. The problem with the popularity factor is the argument that there are and have been many popular beliefs about the existence of mythological figures which are not credible. In fact, my post focused on exactly this factor, and why the Jesus phenomenon and it's source documents are different and a special case.

I'm suprised you didn't realize that after an honest reading of my post. You might disagree with my analysis. But to indicate I'm just ignoring that factor is unfair.

You know, Sklansky's recent thread where he points out that the arguments of those who for some reason have an axe to grind over their position are suspsect makes a lot of sense. I'm seeing a lot of strange posts around here which seem designed to avoid real engagement and use the tactic of misrepresenting what other posters say so that they can dismiss their strawman misrepresentaion.

PairTheBoard

[MaxWeiss]

It's not a very good movie, but it does make a decent case that Jesus didn't exist.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes its a popular belief that jesus existed and has been for some time.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You take all my hard thought analysis and reduce it to, "its a popular belief and has been for some time"? Or are you saying that's how Sklansky would estimate the probability?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't a popular belief then do you think DS would give it a high probability? Would you bet on it then?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My Sklansky Probabilty Meter works a bit differently than David's. He can speak for himself on how his would work here. Although there might be a subliminal influence, I'm doing my best to exclude the popularity factor from my estimate. I certainly did not mention it in my post. The problem with the popularity factor is the argument that there are and have been many popular beliefs about the existence of mythological figures which are not credible. In fact, my post focused on exactly this factor, and why the Jesus phenomenon and it's source documents are different and a special case.

I'm suprised you didn't realize that after an honest reading of my post. You might disagree with my analysis. But to indicate I'm just ignoring that factor is unfair.

You know, Sklansky's recent thread where he points out that the arguments of those who for some reason have an axe to grind over their position are suspsect makes a lot of sense. I'm seeing a lot of strange posts around here which seem designed to avoid real engagement and use the tactic of misrepresenting what other posters say so that they can dismiss their strawman misrepresentaion.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you'e reading too much into this and I've no idea which position you think I have an axe to grind over - I assure you that's not the case. Personally I think its likely someone known as jesus existed.

However [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] the credibility of the belief doesn't help. Even if some popular beliefs can be ignored because you think they lack credibility that doesn't change the fact that if the belief in Jesus wasn't popular you almost certainly wouldn't believe it likely he existed.

I don't really see how you can deny that's the case but I could be wrong.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
However the credibility of the belief doesn't help. Even if some popular beliefs can be ignored because you think they lack credibility that doesn't change the fact that if the belief in Jesus wasn't popular you almost certainly wouldn't believe it likely he existed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'll accept that you think it's a relevant point. I don't see the logic in it though. I start writing to someone I met on the internet. I consider the letters I recieve to be credible evidence that the person exists. I don't know how wide this person's circle of friends is, but I don't come to conclude she exists because its a popular belief that she exists. I come to that conclusion because I have what I think is credible evidence for it.

You might say that the reason we're even discussing the Jesus phenomenon is because it's a popular belief that he existed. However that's only half of the reason. The other half of the reason we're discussing it is because it's also a popular belief that he didn't exist. So the issue really is, which belief is more credible?

But I'll give you the possibility that I may be missing something. I often do when it comes to Sklansky Probability Meter type stuff.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I'll accept that you think it's a relevant point. I don't see the logic in it though. I start writing to someone I met on the internet. I consider the letters I recieve to be credible evidence that the person exists. I don't know how wide this person's circle of friends is, but I don't come to conclude she exists because its a popular belief that she exists. I come to that conclusion because I have what I think is credible evidence for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes first hand evidence is different. Also, you can check their existence against reality.

That's not the same thing as a distant historical figure. Here we are totally relying on the beliefs/claims of other people who existance/veracity is also open to question.

chez

[MidGe]

Aaah! I get it chez... different standard when you can verify (the other person is at least contemporary)... What you mean by existence vs reality !? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well I'll accept that you think it's a relevant point. I don't see the logic in it though. I start writing to someone I met on the internet. I consider the letters I recieve to be credible evidence that the person exists. I don't know how wide this person's circle of friends is, but I don't come to conclude she exists because its a popular belief that she exists. I come to that conclusion because I have what I think is credible evidence for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes first hand evidence is different. Also, you can check their existence against reality.

That's not the same thing as a distant historical figure. Here we are totally relying on the beliefs/claims of other people who existance/veracity is also open to question.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So if we look at the evidence that the Roman Emperor Caligula historically existed and decide that he did, is it relevant to point out; "yes but you wouldn't believe he historically existed if it wasn't a popular belief"?

I still don't see the point. Seems like just an idle observation to me. What does it really add of substance? How does that really speak to the evidence we considered?

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So if we look at the evidence that the Roman Emperor Caligula historically existed and decide that he did, is it relevant to point out; "yes but you wouldn't believe he historically existed if it wasn't a popular belief"?

[/ QUOTE ]
We believe Caligua existed because its a popular belief. Certainly true for me and unless you're an expert on Rome and have studied the source evidence then that's true for you as well.

Why is it reasonable to infer Caligua existed from popular belief? Its because we infer from the popular belief that there is supporting evidence.

Is there a difference between Caligua and Jesus? Yes there are two reasons:

1) we have reason to believe that a lot of source information exists for stuff like Roman Emperors and little (if any) for Jesus

2) There's less reason to believe that people would propogate unsubstantiated belief in a roman emporer than a religous figure. It could be an anti-roman propoganda meme but we might think that a lot weaker than a religous meme.

So we might reasonably conclude that both existed but its more likely caligua existed than jesus. In both cases these reasonable beliefs are either because we've checked the existance against reality (source material) or because of popular belief.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
We believe Caligua existed because its a popular belief. Certainly true for me and unless you're an expert on Rome and have studied the source evidence then that's true for you as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Although I have not studied the source material for Caligula myself I have read reports of people who have. I base my belief that he existed historically on those reports, not on "popular belief" as I think that phrase is commonly understood. My belief is based on the source material even though I'm getting my information about it second hand. I also consider the credibility and possible bias of those doing the reporting. Those were the same criteria on which I based my comments about the historical existence of Jesus in my post. I mentioned the difficulties involved in the source materials we have available in the Jesus case and took them into account. I recognized the phenomenon of invention by people for Religious beliefs and spoke to the difference in the Jesus case for the point of his historical existence.

So for either the Caligula case or from what I wrote in my post, for the Jesus case, to say that either conclusion is based on Popular Belief is I think an incorrect characterization.

PairTheBoard