Evidence for Jesus

[Cavemonster]

By the logic (and I use the word very loosely) presented above Sherlock Holmes must have existed.

Evidence doesn't necessarily show that anything MUST be true. Evidence is information that changes the level of confidence that we can have that any particular hypothesis is true.

There is evidence FOR positions that are actually false.

For instance, a scientific trial is very good evidence, but it's not ENOUGH evidence until it's been replicated numerous times. And even then there's a non-zero chance it will lead to a false conclusion.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Evidence doesn't necessarily show that anything MUST be true. Evidence is information that changes the level of confidence that we can have that any particular hypothesis is true.

Well try it for yourself then...

I am thinking of a story. With no further information what is your level of confidence that it is true? 50/50?

It's based in Malta. With no further information what is your level of confidence that it is true? Different? How So?

Is the existence of Malta therefore evidence that my story is true?

 

[I Ratant]

Actually, no, it's not evidence at all in the first place. (Also because it was Spiderman who was in New York, not Superman, you heathens!) ...

.
That's a big 10-4, good buddy.
It was Gotham City! Totally different universe!

 

[Cavemonster]

You said we were given 2 stories though. The point is that its the content of the stories in their entirety that determines whether they are true or not.

Yes, in the end the TOTALITY of evidence determines truth. But every piece of information along the way contributes to the likelihood of the truth it establishes.

Truth claims most often have multiple facets, and evidence advances the liklihood of these facets sometimes independently.

Try reversing the flow of logic.

Does knowing New York exists suggest that there is a man who can fly living there? Clearly not.

No, but the claim has multiple facets, ALL of which are necessary for the claim to be true.

-At least one flying person exists.
-This person is a male
-This person lives in New York City

The fact that this person flies is definitely the most interesting part of it, but if a flying man existed in Tulsa Oklahoma, the "Flying man in New York" hypothesis would not be true.

It's easy to think, only of the evidence for the most extraordinary facets of a claim when a claim is extraordinary, but we need all the facets that define the claim to be true.

If no such city as New York existed, the "Flying Man in New York" hypothesis could not possibly be true.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

Precisely what objective evidence would you expect to find of an obscure peasant from the first century? And do you have similar skepticism about the existence of, say, Simon bar Kochba, or Hanina ben Dosa, or Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Meir? If not, why not? Most of them are only known from their followers' writings too.

Jesus is about as well-attested as most non-royal figures of his time. In antiquity they just didn't keep the sort of 'objective' historical records that we do, and by definition, the poor leave few material remains, and those that were left have long since disappeared.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

duplicate post

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, in the end the TOTALITY of evidence determines truth. But every piece of information along the way contributes to the likelihood of the truth it establishes.

Truth claims most often have multiple facets, and evidence advances the liklihood of these facets sometimes independently.



No, but the claim has multiple facets, ALL of which are necessary for the claim to be true.

-At least one flying person exists.
-This person is a male
-This person lives in New York City

The fact that this person flies is definitely the most interesting part of it, but if a flying man existed in Tulsa Oklahoma, the "Flying man in New York" hypothesis would not be true.

It's easy to think, only of the evidence for the most extraordinary facets of a claim when a claim is extraordinary, but we need all the facets that define the claim to be true.

If no such city as New York existed, the "Flying Man in New York" hypothesis could not possibly be true.

Did you try my experiment with the Maltese story? What was your answer?

Yes, if New York doesn't exist then the probability of Flying Man in New York is zero. However if New York does exist it doesn't increase the probability of the story being true.

Try another example. Which of these is more likely to be true?

I have a brother named John.

I have a brother named Peter that lives in Chicago

I have a brother named Gary that lives in San Francisco and drives a Toyota

 

[Brainache]

I see these debates on a Historical v Mythical Jesus as two competing hypotheses.

What these hypotheses are trying to explain is the origin of a specific set of beliefs. A set of beliefs that emerged in the first century in Judea.

The core of these beliefs is something called "The Kingdom Of Heaven" - a naive and impractical belief that "we should all just get along" and that the land belongs to God, not men. "Share all your food and money, forgive debts, be nice to each other and don't screw around"...If people everywhere start acting like this, then "The Kingdom Of Heaven" has arrived here on Earth. We don't have to wait for some distant future when justice will be done, we can have it here and now.

The HJ Hypothesis, AFAICT is that this idea was proposed by a particular Jewish Peasant Preacher called Jesus. HJ didn't do miracles or much of anything else that the gospels say he did, because those gospels were written a long way away by people who never met him. The HJ hypothesis assumes that the Romans didn't like this "Kingdom of Heaven" idea and nailed the Preacher to a post. That's it. No "Son of God", no walking on water, no raising the dead or turning water into wine, those are all just later Theological metaphors - Bells and Whistles demanded by the marketplace of Messiahs.

Any MJ hypothesis (there are several) needs to account for the emergence of this "Kingdom Of Heaven" idea without a particular preacher espousing it. It is all very well to talk about other ancient mythical beings like Mithras or Hercules, but don't forget that Jesus was associated with real people from their recent past like John The Baptist, Ciaphas and Pilate. (yeah yeah, Sherlock Holmes was associated with Queen Victoria and Scotland Yard, I get it) It still leaves the question of where "Kingdom Of Heaven" came from.

We know of at least one sect of ancient Jews who practiced a form of communal sharing of property, who performed rituals with wine and bread at every meal, who believed in an imminent apocalypse and a Heaven for the righteous and Hell for the sinners- the Dead Sea Scrolls community, but even those DSS religious nutjobs had a flesh and blood Teacher, not some ethereal "Zeitgeist" inspiration.

Until the MJ hypothesis can account for the ideas without the Preacher, I think it is inferior to the HJ hypothesis. But then again, I'm still learning about this subject, so my position is open to change based on further information...

 

[Cavemonster]

Did you try my experiment with the Maltese story? What was your answer?

Yes, if New York doesn't exist then the probability of Flying Man in New York is zero. However if New York does exist it doesn't increase the probability of the story being true.

Try another example. Which of these is more likely to be true?

I have a brother named John.

I have a brother named Peter that lives in Chicago

I have a brother named Gary that lives in San Francisco and drives a Toyota

Honestly, I think I've done a poor job explaining my position and this line of argument is sort of tangential to my point. If you don't mind, I'd like to start with a fresh example free from a bit of the baggage.

How likely do you think it is (just off the top of your head without performing a search) that there is a Jewish lawyer living in New York City named Daniel?

 

[Mojo]

If you define "Historical Aslan" as a non talking lion that existed somewhere on earth, then yes. But it's not a very interesting claim.

Nor is a carpenter called Yeshua living in 1st century Jerusalem.

And there still isn't any evidence in what you posted even for that.

 

[pakeha]

...Until the MJ hypothesis can account for the ideas without the Preacher, I think it is inferior to the HJ hypothesis. But then again, I'm still learning about this subject, so my position is open to change based on further information...

I'm learning here, too.
Could you show us why those ideas are unique to that time and place and need a Preacher/HJ?

 

[HansMustermann]

Precisely what objective evidence would you expect to find of an obscure peasant from the first century? And do you have similar skepticism about the existence of, say, Simon bar Kochba, or Hanina ben Dosa, or Rabbi Akiva or Rabbi Meir? If not, why not? Most of them are only known from their followers' writings too.

Jesus is about as well-attested as most non-royal figures of his time. In antiquity they just didn't keep the sort of 'objective' historical records that we do, and by definition, the poor leave few material remains, and those that were left have long since disappeared.

1. Well, that's a different issue from the silliness of saying that if Jerusalem and such existed, then specifically Jesus of Nazareth probably existed? Because that's what the thread seems to have turned into. Working from limited information is one thing, but something as bogus as confirming Spiderman because New York existed is another thing altogether.

2. Well, that works both ways, lioness.

For royal figures they were fairly well known and there were plenty of witnesses around. E.g., when Tacitus writes about Nero about half a century later, he's writing in Rome about one of THE most public and infamous people ever.

It's like, dunno, a Muscovite writing today about Stalin (the interval IS a bit longer, but I'm compensating for increased life expectancy.) And he were writing in Moscow. Don't you think that even without printed press and TV, you'd find literally tens of thousands of people around who lived through his reign, without even trying too hard?

On the other hand, for a nobody like Jesus, who we're even reminded that in Jerusalem there'd be no reason for anyone to take notice... why would you think that Mark had plenty of witnesses about THAT one, when writing 40-50 years later and in Rome instead of Jerusalem? If he's an anonymous nobody, then he is an anonymous nobody.

To continue the 'writing about Stalin' analogy, imagine that instead of writing about Stalin in Moskow, you were writing today in Washington DC about some guy called Ivan Ivanovich, who was born in some insignificant village that nobody heard about, and who was an insignificant bum in Moskow for a year in 1940 until the NKVD tortured and killed him for cursing the regime. Now imagine that you're in an age equally lacking mass media, internet, etc, like was the case in the 1st century, so you really need first hand witnesses. How many would you find? You'd be lucky to meet even one guy who says he knew a bum called Ivan. You wouldn't have plenty of reliable oral traditions.

So, yes, the story is largely unsupported and unreliable if that's the case.

3. Let's look at Occam, or how it's called in history, at historical necessity. You only need an extra entity there if you actually NEED to fill a hole that isn't otherwise explained.

For Bar Kokhba you need someone to lead a revolt. People don't wage an organized war without following someone. For Jesus you don't. Some guys BELIEVING in a Jesus are enough to explain everything.

 

[HansMustermann]

Honestly, I think I've done a poor job explaining my position and this line of argument is sort of tangential to my point. If you don't mind, I'd like to start with a fresh example free from a bit of the baggage.

How likely do you think it is (just off the top of your head without performing a search) that there is a Jewish lawyer living in New York City named Daniel?

Except that's just as irrelevant as the existence of New York City. We don't just need a random guy called Jesus in Jerusalem (there were probably literally thousands of Jesuses), we need a guy who had disciples, preached certain things, etc, to count as a historical Jesus. Just because you have a random guy called Jesus, doesn't mean you can just assume the rest.

E.g., similarly you can take a guess that an Arab called something like Abd Al Hazen (servant/slave of Hazen) or Abd Al Hazrat (servant/slave of the great lord) or Abd al Hazred (slave of the fenced in, i.e., probably of some ascet or hermit) or, as Lovecraft's character is actually translated in Arabic, Abdulah Al Hazred ('slave/servant of the god, the fenced in', i.e., you can attach that either to Abdullah as being a hermit title, or to the god who is sealed away) could have existed because those are plausible Arabic names. And they're less off than Jesus is for Yehoshua. But that doesn't mean you can then also assume that he wrote the Necronomicon.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Honestly, I think I've done a poor job explaining my position and this line of argument is sort of tangential to my point. If you don't mind, I'd like to start with a fresh example free from a bit of the baggage.

How likely do you think it is (just off the top of your head without performing a search) that there is a Jewish lawyer living in New York City named Daniel?

I would say that's fairly likely but all elements of your story are known quantities and we are not talking about 1 specific lawyer but anyone that fits the description.

If we are just talking about any old Jewish carpenter called Jesus that may be fairly likely too. But that doesn't make them the source of the myth any more than finding an english schoolboy named harry makes them the source of jk rowlings work.

The point of argument though which you may haave conceded is that the fact that new york exists doesn't by itself make stories set in new york more likely to be true. The maths wouldn't work if it did.

 

[Cavemonster]

I would say that's fairly likely but all elements of your story are known quantities.

I'd say it's more than fairly likely, it's guaranteed.
I would bet money any day of the week that a person fitting this description existed.

You say these are known quantities? How are they known? The same sort of evidence that I pointed to in my first post.

We know that New York has a high population.
We know that a significant percent of that population is Jewish.
We know NY is an urban area with a lot of law firms.
We know that Daniel is a very common Jewish name.
We know that Jewish people not uncommonly go into law.

Now I know that right now you seem to object to the relation of this kind of broad statistical data to claims about a specific individual. Putting that on hold for the moment though, would you concede that the above is the sort of evidence you used to come to the conclusion that the claim?

"There is at least one Jewish man named Daniel living in NYC who practices law".

In this context at least, will you concede that this is evidence?

If not, by what evidence did you arrive at the conclusion that this claim is fairly likely?

 

[HansMustermann]

If that's your only claim, then yes, there probably is a Jewish lawyer in NY called Daniel.

And there probably was a Jewish carpenter that visited Jerusalem at some point or another. Especially for Passover. Even by sheer number of Jesuses alone, I really mean "probably".

Now what? How do you get from something that generic to an analogy for specifically the historical Jesus?

ETA: I mean equally one can say with a straight face that even by sheer numbers, there probably was a schoolboy in England called Harry. In fact, not just "probably", but we can be sure, since there are a metric buttload of people called Harry who were once schoolboys. But now how would you use that for the historical Harry Potter? And if you don't think that just the existence of a schoolboy called Harry is enough to have a historical Harry Potter, please explain why the exact same is somehow support for a historical Jesus.

 

[Cavemonster]

If that's your only claim, then yes, there probably is a Jewish lawyer in NY called Daniel.

And there probably was a Jewish carpenter that visited Jerusalem at some point or another. Especially for Passover. Even by sheer number of Jesuses alone, I really mean "probably".

Now what? How do you get from something that generic to an analogy for specifically the historical Jesus?

ETA: I mean equally one can say with a straight face that even by sheer numbers, there probably was a schoolboy in England called Harry. In fact, not just "probably", but we can be sure, since there are a metric buttload of people called Harry who were once schoolboys. But now how would you use that for the historical Harry Potter? And if you don't think that just the existence of a schoolboy called Harry is enough to have a historical Harry Potter, please explain why the exact same is somehow support for a historical Jesus.

I'm not moving towards an analogy that mirrors Jesus in every way, I'm constructing analogies that clarify how we use evidence.

As for Harry Potter and Superman. Let's stop for the moment talking about figures we KNOW to be false. That's led us on some tangents away from the point. Although it's important to understand that evidence for a position doesn't necessarily mean it's true. There can be evidence in favor of something that turns out to be false. I'll come back to that if I need to, but I think it's an unnecessary sticking point right now.

So we've established that wider demographic style evidence can establish the likelihood of a certain kind of person. I'm glad we're on the same page on that. And that kind can be very specific, down to the name and even more so. I could keep adding details to Daniel and you could keep using demographics as evidence of likelihood. Of course any detail I add decreases his likely existence, but it does so to an amount in proportion to the consistency with what you know. If I said he ate bagels with lox last Tuesday, that would make someone fitting the description a certain amount less likely to exist. If I said he ate 17 live goldfish last Tuesday, it would have a different effect.

So let's take a new analogy to talk about using this demographic data to make predictions about specific individuals.

Let's say I ask a number of individuals, selected at random from all around the world, to write down true details about themselves, and then I have a computer program which creates a multiple choice question where one of the answers has the location swapped with one picked at random.

Here's the first question my computer program created.

Which of these is the real person?

A) My name is Daniel Stein, I'm a lawyer living in New York City, New York. I'm Jewish. I work at the law firm my father started, live in a very expensive apartment, and I ate bagels with lox from a local deli last Tuesday.

B) My name is Daniel Stein, I'm a lawyer living in Cafombo, Angola. I'm Jewish. I work at the law firm my father started, live in a very expensive apartment, and I ate bagels with lox from a local deli last Tuesday.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not moving towards an analogy that mirrors Jesus in every way, I'm constructing analogies that clarify how we use evidence.

What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence that there was a carpenter called Yeshua in Jerusalem in the first century AD. Or that there is a Jewish lawyer called Daniel in New York.

 

[eight bits]

Bad Boy

Aren't you glad you asked?

It's hard to answer a query about a hearsay statement, because we can't ask the Jesuit priest what he meant by "physical evidence" or how he might distinguish a "historical Jesus" from what might well be his belief in a supernatural Jesus. We here can only guess. Here's mine.

If he isn't distinguishing historicity at all, then his statement is almost tautological. The question of a supernatural Jesus isn't a physical one, and so it is unclear how any physical object or situation could bear on it. So, let's assume he meant some historical Jesus.

If he was a lawyer, or chose his words like one, then he would be talking about the kind of things mentioned in jest by Craig B in his post on the first page,

But we have alleged evidence in the form of his foreskin, umbilical cord, tears, phials of his mother's milk, bits of the manger in which he was born, samples of his blood; as well as the nails and bits of the cross used to crucify him, the notice pinned to his cross, samples of his swaddling clothes, and innumerable other things. Crowns of thorns. There's no end to them! What more could we need? His shroud? Well, we've got that too!

In other words, something other than verbal testimony, business records, and what we actually have, redacted reports of traditions about the man. The problem with all the things on Craig's list is that we cannot exclude for any of them that they were manufactured or procured much more recently than Jesus is supposed to have lived. In many cases, it is breathtakingly obvious that they were just that, relatively recent fakes.

So, if that's what the Jesuit meant, then his position is respectable. There might be some cavils about the shroud and the titulus, since some people remain unconvinced of their fakeness or misattribution, with apparent sincerity. In that case, where some actual analysis is called for, many modern theories of evidentiary reasoning (for example, the sort of thinking ably represented here by Cavemonster, and a category which includes Bayesianism, which has also been mentioned in the thread) urge evaluation of evidence by a comparison of:

the plausibility that the object would be present, assuming that Jesus lived

versus

the plausibility that the object would be present, assuming that Jesus did not live

As with all evidentiary evaluations, people will differ in their assessments. Many people would say, however, that if they found the two plausibilities of nearly equal conviction, then the object is "not evidence," because its existence could not possibly change anybody's mind (or very many people's minds) about the uncertain question, at least not those who agreed with the equipoise evaluation (or near-equipoise).

So, it is likely that your Jesuit informants' statement is a truthful account of his beliefs on the narrow question of the physical evidence for some historical Jesus. It would be easier, though, and we could be more definite, if we had the opportunity to speak with him directly. It would also be interesting to hear the rest of his argument, of which this statement was a part.

Hope that helps.

 

[Cavemonster]

Or that there is a Jewish lawyer called Daniel in New York.

Do you think it likely that there is a Jewish lawyer named Daniel living in NYC?

Why or why not?