Jesus Studies Historiography

[Bernard Muller]

Bernard makes these errors:

a) having a preconceived answer to his inquiry (yes, Jesus existed);

Why would that be an error? There is no clear-cut evidence in ancient texts Jesus did not exist. But many of these texts show he did (including the Pauline epistles, our earliest texts, indicating his past existence as human/earthly, in many ways).

b) adopting all interpretations of the evidence, even disputed interpretations in the most favorable light;

Mythicists have to dispute every pieces of evidence indicating Jesus existed. They absolutely have too, for all of them, with no exception. If not, their theory is proven false. So disputed interpretations from mythicists, replacing a more natural reading, is to be expected. But these interpretations are far-fetched and tenuous, themselves the subject of disputes between mythicists.

c) fitting all evidence into his theory (rationalizing away inconsistencies, such as even when his sources agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Bernard adopts the position that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem;

I do not know why you think I should always agree with the gospels content (which I did very rarely).
As for Bethlehem, I studied the issue in length in one of my webpage and concluded (like most, if not all critical scholars) that he was not born there.
I do not see any problem about rationalizing away inconsistencies when it is done with many valid arguments.

d) very naive use of the sources themselves. He doesn't seem to see these things, that's fine, there won't be any convincing.

I do not see why my use of sources would be naive. I certainly rejected a huge lot of them (with a lot of explained reasons). What things I am not seeing? I guess, the very confused fully mythicist many viewpoints.

He's been pretty clear that he does not view his answers as tentative,

What's wrong with that? why any answer would have to be tentative? More so when I researched the problem for years? And I just proposed A reconstruction, not THE reconstruction.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

So the question would be: How did an apparently rustic rural individual ignite the development of Christianity?

.

Lit the match to bonfire that had its wood already stacked. Hellenistic Judaism had long wanted to divorce cultural Judaism it had worshipped for centuries. The fall of the temple threw gas on this fire.

With almost half a million possible witnesses at Passover. A single man who took on the corrupt government by himself was murdered by Romans keeping peace. His actions viewed as selfless and pure to heart made him a martyred man. Mythology developed and grew enough to find his previous teachings valuable enough that the mythology gained a following, that grew.

[MrMacSon]

.
There is so much wrong with so many of the comments here.

Good historiography relies on adequate primary sources: there are no primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth/Bethlehem. None!

This is nonsense -

There is no clear-cut evidence in ancient texts Jesus did not exist.

It is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratum -

• There is no evidence against p.
  Therefore, p
  
  "An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it"

More on argumentum ad ignoratum here


This is nonsense bare-assertion' -

But many of these texts show he did (including the Pauline epistles, our earliest texts, indicating his past existence as human/earthly, in many ways).

Falsifiability is a spurious concept; "unfalsifiable" more-so. Testability is a more realistic perspective, as is 'ability to examine'.

This is a reasonable comment on falsifiability, given its limitations

In fact, the "obscure Jesus" hypothesis really puts Jesus beyond falsifiability (which puts the thesis beyond acceptability as a productive focus of examination)

but these sentences are not

Celestial Jesus is easily unfalsifiable. The problem is that the evidence that would falsify it doesn't exist. That does not mean it isn't falsifiable.

Individually, and in sequence, they're gobble-de-gook.
.

[outhouse]

There is no clear-cut evidence in ancient texts Jesus did not exist.

Not only that none of the movements enemies disputed his existence in any way.

Mythicists have to dispute every pieces of evidence indicating Jesus existed.

And every single argument that has ever been brought up has been effectively refuted for the last 100 years.

As for Bethlehem, I studied the issue in length in one of my webpage and concluded (like most, if not all critical scholars) that he was not born there.
I do not see any problem about rationalizing away inconsistencies when it is done with many valid arguments.

To me it shows a clear lack of education on their part. Not understanding how these books were compiled or written.

These books all reflect a later timer period after the mythology grew for decades by people far removed from any actual event who wrote in rhetorical prose.

do not see why my use of sources would be naive.

The problem is in their lack of education. These sources HAVE to be used and explained. And there is a more plausible explanation then mythicism.


As it stands Jesus has historicity as existing.

The path based on education and knowledge and plausibility, stands solid, and this path has almost complete universal acceptance by all scholars.

And its close to both of our understanding.

[MrMacSon]

deleted

[outhouse]

Good historiography relies on adequate primary sources: there are no primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth/Bethlehem. None!

False, out of context.


This time period has almost zero primary sources, and thus, does not apply.

This is nonsense bare-assertion' -

No

It is the educated opinion.

Falsifiability is a spurious concept; "unfalsifiable" more-so. Testability is a more realistic perspective, as is 'ability to examine'.

Quite a bit of fluff, and no substance.


No replacement hypothesis to explain the evidence, and you cannot knock down the historicity he currently holds.

[MrMacSon]

There is no clear-cut evidence in ancient texts Jesus did not exist.

Not only that none of the movements enemies disputed his existence in any way.

More argumentum ad ignoratium

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[outhouse]

There is no clear-cut evidence in ancient texts Jesus did not exist.

Not only that none of the movements enemies disputed his existence in any way.

More argumentum ad ignoratium

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist

Much confusion about arguments from ignorance can be caused when one side of a debate forgets that we often possess evidence of absence in practice.

[MrMacSon]

Good historiography relies on adequate primary sources: there are no primary sources for Jesus of Nazareth/Bethlehem. None!

False, out of context.

This time period has almost zero primary sources, and thus, does not apply.

There are primary sources: see "No Meek Messiah" by Micael Paulkovich (Paulkovich includes some spurious sources in the 126 sources he lists, though)

This is nonsense bare-assertion' -

No. It is the educated opinion.

More bare assertion.

No replacement hypothesis to explain the evidence

The only information is a theological book; a book that has history from the 4th century; there is previous, currently-vague information about its components texts/gospels/epistles, but that information is poorly defined.

and you cannot knock down the historicity he currently holds.

There is *a history-of-the-story*; like the history of the King Arthur story, or the history of the William Tell story; but no history of/for the characters of these stories, including the bible.

[outhouse]

The ignorance fallacy is sometimes confused (or combined) with logically valid contrapositive arguments. Contrapositive arguments rightly utilize the transposition rule of inference in classical logic to conclude something like: To the extent that C implies E then Not-E must also imply Not-C. In other words, if a cause always leads to an effect, then absence of the expected effect is evidence of absence of the cause. For example, if the causal proposition that If it's raining outside then the streets will be wet is assumed, then it can be assumed that if the streets are not wet then it is not raining outside. The inference that it cannot be raining outside because the streets are not getting wet is exactly as true, or perhaps exactly as untrue, as the original proposition. The statements are logically equivalent.