Disprove A Historical Character

Aug 2019
17
Universe, Milky way, Sol System, Easrt
I think i made a mistake with how i phrased the description because this thread seems to be slowly devolving into another " did Jesus exist one" i was just curious on what it would Hypothetically take to disprove a historical character and especially one that did not build monuments and available only in copies, i.e. no written in stone sources that could have survived the ages and all available texts even if dated to their life time are technically copies
 
Feb 2017
423
Latin America
whats the actual evidence to support this claim?

I know of no evidence that supports this,
I already said what it was: "And there is no evidence, except for being based on testimony, the early dating of the Gospels and Paul's letters and the accurate and consistent details about Jesus's life. You have to try harder."

I think i made a mistake with how i phrased the description because this thread seems to be slowly devolving into another " did Jesus exist one" i was just curious on what it would Hypothetically take to disprove a historical character and especially one that did not build monuments and available only in copies, i.e. no written in stone sources that could have survived the ages and all available texts even if dated to their life time are technically copies
People only really try to disprove religious figures. Hardly anyone tries to disprove figures considered more "secular" because disproving the historicity of someone is agenda-based. What it takes to disprove a historical figure is pointing out that sources for him/her are far too late, that is, several centuries after their purported existence, are in mythological or literary contexts or/and the sources are way too contradictory. In general, however, most historical figures have little evidence. Even the literary sources that are thought of as being contemporary are contained in manuscripts written centuries after. The only exception are perhaps medieval and modern sources, but some medieval manuscripts are indeed centuries later than the period they purport to record.

Take Genghis Khan, for example. For someone who conquered as far as Russia and created a massive empire, all sources written about him come after his death, some decades later, and come from manuscripts that are centuries later than the purported events. We have therefore manuscripts that are centuries after Genghis lived that on top of that were purportedly written decades after he died. For archaeological evidence, we have little as well. We could mention coins struck with his name, but that's pretty much it, and said coins are from after he died. For battles where dozens of thousands were killed, we have extremely little archaeological evidence. The evidence for Genghis Khan existing is there, but it's confirmed pretty much by being cumulative, not by being decisive. To theoretically deny his existence, you could say that only contemporary evidence from his life backed up by archaeology is the only evidence that counts. But that is without a doubt ridiculous, and it's such a wide set of criteria that it ends up reducing almost all historical figures as fictional characters, which is patently absurd because we would be left without explanations for the books and archaeological sites that we have, or even historical legacies that are still with us. For instance, Mongolia being a big country and Genghis serving as the ancestor of the Ottomans of Turkey and Mughals of India.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazeuma

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,799
I already said what it was: "And there is no evidence, except for being based on testimony, the early dating of the Gospels and Paul's letters and the accurate and consistent details about Jesus's life. You have to try harder."
so your statement is based on nothing at all.

"The Gospels are richer in details and, like I keep saying, written by people who either knew Jesus or knew his closest acquaintances. "


based on whgat testimony?

accuarte compared to what?

conosistnet compared to what?

themselves. circular logic.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,033
Australia
I already said what it was: "And there is no evidence, except for being based on testimony, the early dating of the Gospels and Paul's letters and the accurate and consistent details about Jesus's life. You have to try harder."
You have yourself a circular argument there. You need to produce some independent corroboration.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,401
Italy, Lago Maggiore
There are two processes which can meet your necessity [to erase from history a personage]:

1. cultural / literary
2. physical

Ancient Egyptians used both the strategies. May be you can think that this is obvious, but once you remind no more in history books the name of a personage, the existence of a statue can be innocuous for your purposes. Egyptians, in the doubt, preferred to destroy or deface statues and depictions as well.

Option 1 can see different variants: the most simple is to undermine the first authors who have transmitted the knowledge of the personage, accusing them of being drunkards who invented something in their works ... [just to make an example]. So that later historians would have simply trusted the fantasy of unreliable writers. About this, on the other hand, there can be the problem of how many authors wrote about the personage. Think to erase Napoleon from history: you should accuse many and many authors to have been part of a kind of conspiracy to create a historical personage ...

So, this is more easy more you go backwards into time and less direct witnesses have left a historical memory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PecuTheGreat
Aug 2019
17
Universe, Milky way, Sol System, Easrt
Please don't turn this into another "Jesus never Existed" Thread, we already have two on the home page and many more in the Archives, i may just have to delete this and rephrase the question
 
Aug 2011
197
The Castle Anthrax
Well... if we're honest, none of us know absolutely what we're talking about on most of these threads. We know what authors have written, i.e., according to Polybius..., according to Herodotus..., according to Livy..., etc. Are they infallible? Perhaps they are, but the best we can do is cross examine their chronicles with others' and what evidence we have. Which ultimately requires a degree of trust in sources.
 
Nov 2016
1,347
Germany
I already said what it was: "And there is no evidence, except for being based on testimony, the early dating of the Gospels and Paul's letters and the accurate and consistent details about Jesus's life. You have to try harder."
I wonder how intensively you've really dealt with the subject. Neither an "early dating" of the gospels is assured (they could all have originated in the 2nd century CE) nor can one convincingly speak of "consistency" in the gospels, for several reasons:

+ first of all the gospel of Mark served as a guideline for Luke and Matthew, so parallels in the gospels are self-evident.

+ secondly, dozens of other gospels were sorted out before the four surviving gospels came into the canon. So the "consistency" is also a result of selection.

+ thirdly, all miracle stories can be considered invented (from a scientific point of view). So you can exclude them from the alleged biography.

+ fourthly, the court and Pilate episodes are very implausibly described and therefore doubtful.

+ fifthly, only a small part of the alleged biography of Jesus is depicted. What happened in the 18 years which are missing in the Gospels? What did the Christian superhero do at the age of 18 or 22 or 25? If he'd really lived, they'd have handed down something about it.

etc. etc.

Please don't turn this into another "Jesus never Existed" Thread, we already have two on the home page and many more in the Archives, i may just have to delete this and rephrase the question
How will you delete the thread (or what do you mean) :)? Btw, Chlodio has already said everything necessary to your initial question.

"Spirits that I´ve cited my commands ignore..." (Goethe, The Sorcerer´s Apprentice)
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,401
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Well... if we're honest, none of us know absolutely what we're talking about on most of these threads. We know what authors have written, i.e., according to Polybius..., according to Herodotus..., according to Livy..., etc. Are they infallible? Perhaps they are, but the best we can do is cross examine their chronicles with others' and what evidence we have. Which ultimately requires a degree of trust in sources.
Correct. At the end, about what we haven't seen during our life, we, in a certain sense, merge the available sources, obtaining a potentially credible portrait of a a person or description of an event. If four authors of chronicles who lived in the time of Henry II [and near to him] have reported the same habit of the Sovereign ... it's probable that such a habit was real. But when there is only one author who reports something not documented by physical evidences ... we have to decide if we can trust that author or not ...