Did Napoleon Ever Exist?
At best history gives us only scant evidence for some of our most firmly held conclusions. Scant evidence then is at best what we can hope to find. But scant evidence is also easy to deny. "In the interest of conservative theology, to reduce to an absurdity the purely negative tendencies of the rationalistic criticism of the Scriptures then in vogue" Jean-Baptiste Pérès (1752 - 1840) wrote a book called Did Napoleon Ever Exist?.
It generated a lot of discussion. That's because there is only scant evidence for historical claims. But come on, do we really want to deny that Napoleon existed? We are then FORCED to accept scant evidence for historical claims or else we may end up denying such things like Napoleon's existence. What Pérès failed to realize is that if he can deny Napoleon ever existed then how much more so can I deny the extraordinary historical claims of the Bible.
Given the scant nature of historical evidence I think that when it comes to ORDINARY claims, disregarding for the moment EXTRAORDINARY ones, the burden of proof is on the person who denies what any ancient document says. I must grant that the textual evidence is prima facie reliable until shown otherwise. You see, that's what we MUST do with scant historical evidence. And I do not think the mythicists have met that burden of proof with regard to Jesus. [When it comes to EXTRAORDINARY claims the burden of proof is reversed].
It generated a lot of discussion. That's because there is only scant evidence for historical claims. But come on, do we really want to deny that Napoleon existed? We are then FORCED to accept scant evidence for historical claims or else we may end up denying such things like Napoleon's existence. What Pérès failed to realize is that if he can deny Napoleon ever existed then how much more so can I deny the extraordinary historical claims of the Bible.
Given the scant nature of historical evidence I think that when it comes to ORDINARY claims, disregarding for the moment EXTRAORDINARY ones, the burden of proof is on the person who denies what any ancient document says. I must grant that the textual evidence is prima facie reliable until shown otherwise. You see, that's what we MUST do with scant historical evidence. And I do not think the mythicists have met that burden of proof with regard to Jesus. [When it comes to EXTRAORDINARY claims the burden of proof is reversed].