For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[dejudge]

This illustrates with even more resplendent magnificence than on the last occasion - if that is even possible - the dangers inherent in misuse of the word "fiction". You have been wilfully exposing yourself to these dangers and unfortunately you have now succumbed to them, and have suffered irremediable intellectual collapse.

A "fiction character" is a character not intended as authentic by the author; and moreover the author neither expects nor intends the reader to believe in the reality of the character either.

So it goes without saying that words attributed to fiction characters are not witnesses of belief in their existence. That is part of the definition of "fiction". You see now why I warned you against using the term. I knew it would cause confusion and induce even the wise to fall into error.

Again, you post more devastating contradictory nonsense.

Christians believe the stories in their Bible are true.



Examine some of the sayings of the fiction character called the Logos God Creator [Jesus]

NIV

John 14:6

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

NIV

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Christianity is based directly on belief that fiction characters like the Logos--God Creator [Jesus] do exist.

 

[IanS]

OK, then. But you do have an obligation to advance at least a provisional explanation, otherwise the 'where is the evidence?' routine is just obnoxious. If you personally feel that no explanation can be extracted at all from the messy texts, then all you're doing is barracking from the sidelines.



No, you are unconvinced by the interpretation placed on the NT and other sources and do not think those interpretations constitute evidence of a historical Jesus. Which is fine. But this still leaves the problem of explaining the sources unsolved. The NT is evidence for something.



Actually, yes, you do have an obligation to explain the NT and other sources in some coherent manner. Failure to do this doesn't make the Christian religion true nor does it mean that the historicity of Jesus is certain beyond all reasonable doubt.

But failure to explain the sources does mean you have nothing to add to a perfectly worthwhile historical research question, namely how Christianity arose. That is the secular issue at stake here.



Then such biblical writings are evidence for something else; you've not explained what they're evidence for. Constantly relying on 'not' and presenting a series of negations is pretty lame. The texts exist; explain them.



So at what point in the history of the early church are we on 'secure' ground, then?



So how then does a secular historian backtrack from the moment of 'secure' knowledge to explore the origins of one of the most important religions in world history?

It strikes me that historians seeking to reconstruct the origins of Christianity are going to have to rely on the NT and related early texts just as much as they have to rely on the patristic writings and the not terribly reliable Eusebius.



Why is it a problem? All of the surviving sources talk incessantly about a figure named Jesus. They believe in this person's historicity. We are not in a position to travel back in time to disabuse them of this belief; that belief is fully historical.

We cannot verify the existence of the person they so fervently believed in, using external independent corroborative evidence, but nor can we point to external independent evidence that disproves his existence. Measured by the standards of evidence we expect for more contemporary eras, the entire question is uncertain.



It's ironic, you keep going on about 'credible evidence' but the evidence we do have is all about the beliefs in Jesus circulating among early Christians, who proceeded to write down what they thought about him in all their contradictory, messy, polemical, theologically inclined glory.

This situation doesn't bother me, because I don't realistically expect 'hard evidence' here, but it seems to wind you up endlessly.

Instead of droning on about "credible evidence", how about you just accept that what the NT etc offer is evidence of belief. Perfectly credible evidence of belief, in historical terms.



Since I haven't referenced Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?, this is irrelevant. As it happens, I don't think it's a very good book, nor do I think the question (quest) is at all certain.


Yeah, he lost me at that one, too.

No. Absolutely not!

I just told you in very clear terms that (a) I am not claiming Jesus was a myth, and (b) I am not, and never have, supported any particular myth theory either from Carrier or anyone else.

So it's quite absurd for you still to be insisting that I have obligations either to propose a myth theory, or to guess about how a religion like Christianity gained ground without a real Jesus (though I already answered that very clearly in the previous few posts anyway).

I have absolutely no obligation to do any such thing. And you are simply trying yet again to shift you own burden of proof evidence.

If you are claiming that Jesus probably was a real person, then the burden of “proof” is most definitely upon you to produce credible reliable evidence to support any such HJ claim.

What are you claiming as the source of any credible reliable evidence of a human Jesus ever known to anyone?

The bible? Is that your evidence?

 

[Craig B]

Christians believe the stories in their Bible are true.

Therefore these stories do not include "fiction characters".

Christianity is based directly on belief that fiction characters like the Logos--God Creator [Jesus] do exist.

If it is based on the belief that God exists, then even if God does not exist - I don't believe any God exists - he's not a "fiction character". You are still wallowing in confusion over this.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I don't know... do you have any indication that whoever made all those bible stories up WASN'T deliberately writing falsehoods? I mean, a lot of them are there for clear propagandistic purposes. A lot are there to change the message of previous stories. How is that not writing fiction?

Hell, most prophecies in the OT are poured in the same mold. "God" endorsed prophets who predict something and it comes true as the real deal. So a lot of the stuff follows the pattern:

A) we "found" some prophet from centuries ago, who
B) "predicted" some past events with uncanny accuracy, and
C) incidentally "predicted" something about nowadays, that, wouldn't you know it, endorses the agenda of the current rulers.

Isaiah, taken as example just because it's SUCH a darling of Xians, is most likely manufactured by the next ruler. By that child who he so glowingly endorses, and links to the victory in a war. Some dude basically just had a story written to glorify himself, by inventing a prophet who totally endorsed him. And followed the above pattern at that.

How the hell is that NOT writing total propagandistic fiction, and knowingly at that?

Plus other literary markers like repetitions which are not there because someone was accurately writing history. You don't think that whoever put those there wasn't aware that he's padding the story with extra copies of events, copies which are entirely fictive?

And then comes the midrash. Hooo, boy... Fanfic pulled out of the ass at its finest.

They invent whole continuations to Job out of thin air to clarify that God isn't as big an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ as the abrupt end of the story make it sound.

Or they make up details out of thin air about Ruth so it doesn't totally sound like she went to a drunk old dude and pulled his pants off. (Ok, robe up.) They invent such details as, I kid you not, that not only he was too old to get it up anyway, but Ruth didn't even have a womb until God miraculously made one for her after marriage. So, you know, that night encounter TOTALLY wasn't sexual, see?

Etc.

Given that it's made up stories about a made up story, how is that not writing fiction? What kind of confusion of mind would be the alternative? Did they think that pulling a whole story out of the ass, without any historical documents, is somehow... err... what? Dictated by God?

 

[dejudge]

Christians believe the stories in their Bible are true.

Therefore these stories do not include "fiction characters".

Your statement is ridiculously absurd.

1. The ass talking story is fiction whether or not people believe it.

2. The snake talking story is fiction whether or not people believe.

3. The sayings of the Logos, God Creator [Jesus] are fiction whether or not people believe.

4. The sayings of Satan are fiction whether or not people believe.

5. The sayings of angels are fiction whether or not people believe.

Christianity is based directly on belief that fiction characters like the Logos--God Creator [Jesus] do exist.

If it is based on the belief that God exists, then even if God does not exist - I don't believe any God exists - he's not a "fiction character". You are still wallowing in confusion over this.

What nonsense!!! Believing monstrous fables do not make them historical accounts.

The Canon of the Church is a compilation of fiction that people believed was truth.

Examine "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

Against the Galileans

But the Word as firstborn son of God or as a God, or any of those fictions which have been invented by you later, he neither knew at all nor taught openly thereof.

All stories of Jesus are childish foolish fiction .

 

[vridar]

..

 

[Kapyong]

Gday David Mo and all

Sorry, but “"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate) was formulated by the Irish Franciscan philosopher John Punch in his 1639 commentary on the works of Duns Scotus”.

Thanks for agreeing with me David Mo - no need to feel sorry

Occam's Razor is not found exactly in the works of William of Occam - rather it crystalised in the works of later writers like Punch, and was attributed to Occam. Like I said.

I don’t know what is the “contemporary” meaning of Ockham’s Razor ...

Oh, you don't ?
I told you the common interpretation, the only one I know, and which is given as the only interpretation on most relevant web-sites :

"the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one".​

... meaning of Ockham’s Razor, because there are many

Interesting.
Can you tell me some of the many other meanings you know of ?

but my quote was literal from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.1

Yes, you quoted William of Ockham. But NOT Occam's Razor (no-one connects the Razor to 'the authority of Sacred Scripture'.)

Actually, your own source says this :

4.1 Ockham's Razor
Still, Ockham's “nominalism,” in both the first and the second of the above senses, is often viewed as derived from a common source: an underlying concern for ontological parsimony. This is summed up in the famous slogan known as “Ockham's Razor,” often expressed as “Don't multiply entities beyond necessity.”[31] Although the sentiment is certainly Ockham's, that particular formulation is nowhere to be found in his texts.​

Like I said. You were wrong. Your posts are not always honest David Mo, and you seem unable to admit error.

My rendition of the Razor :

"Cut off anything un-necessary"​

(Which can be expressed several ways in English : Chop off what is un-needed; Cut away everything not necessary; etc.)

CUT, not choose.


Kapyong

 

[David Mo]

Hello, Kapyong:

Like I said. You were wrong. Your posts are not always honest David Mo, and you seem unable to admit error.

You should apply yourself Ockham’s Razor even in its simplified form that you like. You have not any rational, empirical or biblical evidence of my honesty or lack of it, so you ought to cut (sic) this unfounded supposition. "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

Can you tell me some of the many other meanings you know of ?
Yes, you quoted William of Ockham. But NOT Occam's Razor (no-one connects the Razor to 'the authority of Sacred Scripture'.)

I am very able to accept my own mistakes but this is not the case.
We don’t agree in that I have provided you with some relevant precisions about Ockham’s Razor but you insist in the “popular” and diffuse formulation.
I don’t know what “relevant websites” you have consulted but I provided you with two articles of the most respected philosophical encyclopaedia in the scholar field. I can provide you with more academic sources if you want.
Your questions show that you have not read or understand these sources. Yes, there was one person at least that considered the Bible an authority over the Razor principle: the very William of Ockham, Gulielmus Occamus or simply Occam, the father of the famous razor. Notwithstanding this disputable belief, his definition was more complete and precise that the popular one that you like.
I think that you have not read the sources that I have quoted because they explained the diverse ways to understand Ockham’s Razor. Even in my quote that I have added there were mentioned two: elegance and parsimony. If you read attentively the Stanford Encyclopedia article (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/ ) by Alan Baker (Who is Alan Barker: http://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/alan-baker-professor-acting-chair) your questions will be answered without my aid. In the introduction you will find different versions of Ockham’s principle and afterwards some more complex explanations. I concede that philosophical vocabulary is not even clear, but you will get a general view of the complexity of the problem. I also might be more explicit on my personal position.

(Which can be expressed several ways in English : Chop off what is un-needed; Cut away everything not necessary; etc.)
CUT, not choose.

When you cut away something this is because you have chosen to maintain an alternative to what you are rejecting. I don’t see a great difference between to cut and to choose here. May be my English doesn’t allow me to distinguish so subtle differences.

 

[David Mo]

Simplicity: Some extracts from Baker, Alan, "Simplicity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/simplicity/> that are relevant for our discussion.

---------------
(1) The apparent familiarity of the notion of simplicity means that it is often left unanalyzed, while its vagueness and multiplicity of meanings contributes to the challenge of pinning the notion down precisely.[2] A distinction is often made between two fundamentally distinct senses of simplicity: syntactic simplicity (roughly, the number and complexity of hypotheses), and ontological simplicity (roughly, the number and complexity of things postulated).[3] These two facets of simplicity are often referred to as elegance and parsimony respectively.
-------------
(2) While these two facets of simplicity are frequently conflated, it is important to treat them as distinct. One reason for doing so is that considerations of parsimony and of elegance typically pull in different directions. Postulating extra entities may allow a theory to be formulated more simply, while reducing the ontology of a theory may only be possible at the price of making it syntactically more complex.
----------------
(3) Perhaps the most common formulation of the ontological form of Occam's Razor is the following:
(OR) Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.
-----------------
(4) Contemporary philosophers have tended to reinterpret OR as a principle of theory choice: OR implies that—other things being equal—it is rational to prefer theories which commit us to smaller ontologies. This suggests the following paraphrase of OR:
(OR1) Other things being equal, if T1 is more ontologically parsimonious than T2 then it is rational to prefer T1 to T2.
-------------
(5) More generally, a sufficient condition for T1 being more parsimonious than T2 is for the ontological commitments of T1 to be a proper subset of those of T2. Note that OR1 is considerably weaker than the informal version of Occam's Razor, OR,
---------
(6) However, such cases are presumably rare, and this points to a more general worry concerning the narrowness of application of OR1 (….) Much more common are situations where ontologies of competing theories overlap, but each theory has postulates which are not made by the other. Straightforward comparisons of ontological parsimony are not possible in such cases.
Before setting aside the definitional question for ontological parsimony, one further distinction should be mentioned. This distinction is between qualitative parsimony (roughly, the number of types (or kinds) of thing postulated) and quantitative parsimony (roughly, the number of individual things postulated). he default reading of Occam's Razor in the bulk of the philosophical literature is as a principle of qualitative parsimony.
-------------------
(7) This desire to minimize the number of individual new entities postulated is often referred to as quantitative parsimony. David Lewis articulates the attitude of many philosophers when he writes:
I subscribe to the general view that qualitative parsimony is good in a philosophical or empirical hypothesis; but I recognize no presumption whatever in favour of quantitative parsimony (Lewis 1973, p. 87).
------
(8) Ranged against the principles of parsimony discussed in previous sections is an equally firmly rooted (though less well-known) tradition of what might be termed “principles of explanatory sufficiency(…) Ockham's contemporary, Walter of Chatton, proposed the following counter-principle to Occam's Razor:
f three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on (quoted in Maurer 1984, p. 464).
------------------
(9) The rise of particle physics and quantum mechanics in the 20th Century led to various principles of plenitude being appealed to by scientists as an integral part of their theoretical framework. A particularly clear-cut example of such an appeal is the case of magnetic monopoles.
--------------------
My opinion about Ockham’s Razor and Jesus’ existence in the next issue. (I hope so).

 

[Craig B]

My own formulation of Occam's Razor is "No observed phenomenon may be advanced in support of any hypothesis which is more complex than the simplest one that accounts for it."

 

[David Mo]

My own formulation of Occam's Razor is "No observed phenomenon may be advanced in support of any hypothesis which is more complex than the simplest one that accounts for it."

This is rather Craig's Razor, because Ockham's Razor is designed for theories with equal support both empirical and rational )logical).

 

[Craig B]

This is rather Craig's Razor, because Ockham's Razor is designed for theories with equal support both empirical and rational )logical).

And why does "my" Razor not work in these circumstances? By the way, I mean "... may legitimately be used to support any hypothesis which is ... etc"

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, actually it's trivial to show why we use Occam's Razor, not Craig's... misunderstanding: because theories and hypotheses have to explain more than ONE event. And therein often lies the need for more complex theories than would explain any ONE event.

E.g., EITHER the light curvature around a star OR the planet orbits could be roughly explained by Newtonian Mechanics (well, up to a point), by just giving them a different gravitational constant. It's trying to explain BOTH that gave us a need for General Relativity. Because no one constant you could put into NM could explain BOTH.

Or there's a reason we have people looking into very complex stuff like string theory or quantum gravity. Phenomena at one end of the spectrum are perfectly explained by QM and at the other end of the spectrum are perfectly explained by GR, but we don't really have a theory that explains BOTH. It's not any one event or piece of data that raises the need for a more general theory, but a whole body of data that either theory can't fully explain.

 

[David Mo]

And why does "my" Razor not work in these circumstances? By the way, I mean "... may legitimately be used to support any hypothesis which is ... etc"

I am not sure I understood well the first part of your sentence. Ockham's Razor (OR) doesn' t prevent us to search for experimental evidence for more complex theories in some specific cases. This was the case of the quantum mechanics. According OR there is no problem in accepting a more complex theory if empirical evidence supports it.

 

[Craig B]

I am not sure I understood well the first part of your sentence. Ockham's Razor (OR) doesn' t prevent us to search for experimental evidence for more complex theories in some specific cases. This was the case of the quantum mechanics. According OR there is no problem in accepting a more complex theory if empirical evidence supports it.

My formulation plainly states that too. If a theory is too simple to account for an observed phenomenon, then - but not before then - must a further hypothesis be made which is complex enough to account for it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But again, we have theories that account for the quantum domain and we have theories which account for particle/object stuff at high speeds. And they both approximate to Newtonian Mechanics at more "normal" conditions. What we don't have is something that describes that particle across ALL domains. It's that combination that requires more complex theories.

A theory must explain ALL data, if possible, or at least more of that data set than previous theories. It's that whole set of data which is the justification, not ONE observed event.

 

[David Mo]

My formulation plainly states that too. If a theory is too simple to account for an observed phenomenon, then - but not before then - must a further hypothesis be made which is complex enough to account for it.

It seems that we agree. Thank you for the clarification.

The question is, what happens with "Historical Jesus"? Can we apply Ockham's Razor? I doubt it.

The mythicist and authenticist theories about Jesus of Galilee can be roughly schematized this way:

Minimal authenticism:
1. A certain Jesus existed.
2. Legendary stories about his life less or more linked to the Jewish messianic tradition were expanded among his disciples after his death as a way to overcome the failure trauma.
3. The messianic tradition was mixed with Hellenistic and Imperial cultural influences to raise the Christ’s status to a heavenly (semi)divinity.

Mythicism:
1. Someone (let us call him “Paul”) invented a religion based on a mixture of Hellenistic, Imperial and Jewish traditions about a heavenly creature semi-divine.
2. His language only referred to earthly concepts as allegories.
3. Some Pauline followers invented an earthly life to the semi-divine creature and interpolated the original Pauline texts.

From the point of view of parsimony what is more complex? (For parsimony and elegance see my comment #889, point (1)).
Both theories present a similar number of alleged entities: a founder of the sect; some disciples; a struggle between tendencies, etc.
From the point of view of elegance, they present a similar complexity in the explanatory assumptions. I would say that the minimalist explanation has a slight advantage. The process of the invention of Jesus on the basis of the Old Testament seems a little more complicated than the justification of an executed pseudo-messiah. I concede that the difference is not big.
Therefore I think that the academic struggle around the historical Jesus, has to be settled on other basis than OR.

 

[dejudge]

...From the point of view of elegance, they present a similar complexity in the explanatory assumptions. I would say that the minimalist explanation has a slight advantage. The process of the invention of Jesus on the basis of the Old Testament seems a little more complicated than the justification of an executed pseudo-messiah. I concede that the difference is not big.
Therefore I think that the academic struggle around the historical Jesus, has to be settled on other basis than OR.

The process of the invention of Jesus on the basis of the Old Testament is precisely documented.

The Old Testament is a direct source of the fabrication of the Jesus character.

The very conception of Jesus is based on Isaiah 7.14. Virtually every supposed acts and words of Jesus were lifted from Hebrew Scripture.

The Jesus character is the fulfillment of supposed Jewish prophecies.

1. Matthew 1:23

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

2. Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

3. 1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

4. Adam is a fiction character in the book of Genesis [the first man without a human father].


The Jesus character is a direct product of the Old Testament.

 

[Craig B]

.Adam is a fiction character in the book of Genesis [the first man without a human father].

You mean that Jews had been hearing stories and reading texts about Adam for many centuries and then they suddenly decided to invent Jesus out of nothing because they'd been reading about God making Adam out of Earth? Did this Jesus have a wife manufactured out of one of his ribs? Did he wander about naked and then make garments from fig leaves? Did his wife talk to snakes?

What you are stating here is a grotesque absurdity derived from fallacious theories concocted by insane people.

 

[David Mo]

The process of the invention of Jesus on the basis of the Old Testament is precisely documented.

The Old Testament is a direct source of the fabrication of the Jesus character.

I don't think that the "invention" of Jesus has been documented.

The use of the Old Testament as prophecies foreseeing the arrival of Jesus Christ is evident. Nobody denies it. You can amass a mountain of quotations. Now then the problem is whether these are used as an invention of a semi-god like a man or as a justification/deification of a man.

I have not seen any commentary/litany of yours that have adressed this issue correctly.