Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[maximara]

There us no sense in comparing History to Law as a means of making since of History.
Law is not History, nor the way History is conducted.

It is rather like using a hydron collider to evaluate paleological DNA.

Josh McDowell's definition of the scientific method shows the man is totally clueless: "The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things. It isn’t adequate for proving or disproving questions about person or events in history"

Here is how the scientific method actually works (Crawford S, Stucki L (1990), "Peer review and the changing research record", "J Am Soc Info Science", vol. 41, pp. 223–228):

1) Define a question
2) Gather information and resources (observe)
3) Form an explanatory hypothesis
4) Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner5) Analyze the data
6) Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7) Publish results
8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


Despite McDowell's claim this method can be applied to the social sciences (which includes history). The experiment in this case is the gathering of the relevant records and there are criteria on the acceptability of those records:

A) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.

B) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.

C) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.

On every one of these points the Gospel accounts fail. No account qualifies as contemporary evidence and there is no evidence that the Gospels are derivative evidence. We don't even have proof the Gospels existed before 130 CE.

And when you do comparative evidence analysis on the Gospels you either wind up with events that are not recorded by anyone else (Herod's slaughter of children c4 BCE) or are odds with know historical facts (Luke's census, the way the two trials were conducted, how Jesus' body was handled after his dead and so on).

 

[pakeha]

"...And when you do comparative evidence analysis on the Gospels you either wind up with events that are not recorded by anyone else (Herod's slaughter of children c4 BCE) or are odds with know historical facts (Luke's census, the way the two trials were conducted, how Jesus' body was handled after his dead and so on). "

I'd be interested in reading a proponent of the historicity of Jesus explain how reliable historical data can be derived from documents upon which we can't do comparative analysis.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge,

I am not going to engage in discourse with you, as such has served to be entirely unpleasant and fruitless, but I found your assessment of my familiarity with Law amusing since I grew up in a court house library thanks to my mother being a paralegal secretary.

I really don't understand what you are trying to imply.

Now, are you familiar with the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth?

I grew up in a Church with my mother and her brother who is a minister.

I was a juror. I was a Christian.

I understand Bayes Theorem.

Unless you have newly found evidence for Jesus of Nazareth then the character is a Myth just like Romulus.

If the Mundane Romulus was a Myth why can't the Son of a Ghost be one too?


The people who GREW UP with Jesus and his Mother claimed he was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

Paul GREW UP at the time of Jesus and his Mother and claimed he was the Son of God and God Creator.

The author of gLuke wrote those who GREW UP with Jesus and his Mother claimed he was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Whatever is stated by those who GREW up with Jesus and his mother is very likely to be true?

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

What I do not think it is helpful in is in spitting out a probability for event X when X is so unique as to be nearly the only event of its kind,...

Why do you characterize those who disagree you as "spitting" when they do their work? They used to be "running." What we would actually be doing in the situations you describe is called "modeling." No bodily fluids, netiher sweat nor spit, are necessarily involved.

The interpretation of probability which Bayesian methods implement is especially apt for unique, unprecedented and otherwise irreproducible eventss. Even the most determined Bayesian critic, Karl Popper, conceded the usefulness of probability for such events. He rejected the Bayesian view, of course, but championed a very similar propensitist interpretation.

Even a frequentist would point out that it is not their teaching that an event is literally repeated, but that the event belongs to a "reference class" of events, plural. Every event which can be uniquely identified is necessarily unique. Frequentists do not imagine that Groundhog Day was a documentary.

Bayes' thought experiment was his back to a table.

There have been one or two developments in the field since then. You might wish to consider updating your paradigmatic example.

Since our topic is history, and in particular the relation of founders to movements, Bayesianism is coincidentally interesting. There is almost nothing Bayesian before Laplace, literally a single posthumously published and all but unreadable paper. Laplace was a notorious credit-hog. For some reason, in this case, he credited Bayes' precedence in the method, when Laplace owed almost none of it to Bayes. Conversely, there is no reason to think that Reverend Bayes would recognize the method that bears his name.The person of Bayes is nevertheless revered, and his tomb in London is maintained largely by living Bayesians, and is a place of pilgrimage.

The parallels to Jesus, Christianity and Paul of Tarsus are striking. (There is even a now lost "empty tomb," unfortunately for parallelism it is William Blake's, Bayes' neighbor in death.)

In any case, your charming stroll down memory lane has as little relevance to the actual practice of living Bayesianism as Jesus' demonstrations of exorcism holds for the Anglican Communion.

What it can't do is tell you the accurate possibility of a ball being on the right side with just one ball.

And what method can, Jayson, in your view?

As to reading, I would propose beginning with a neutral, rather than critical or apologist source. George Polya's Patterns of Plausible Inference is available online for free at Internet Archive. As a gentle introduction to adding numbers (and decisions), you can find chapter 2 of Howard Raiffa's Decision Analysis online from Indiana University.

http://classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/k...ng 2010/Articles/Raiffa - Decision, Ch. 2.pdf

Neither requires more than high school algebra. Raiffa was a Bayesian apologist.

Then, by all means seek out criticism. You will find that the leading critics of Bayesianism are often Bayesians. It is not a monolithic community, another parallel to Christianity. Off-hand, I don't know any non-Bayesian critic of Bayesianism who is not chiefly concerned with advocating something else, something specific, instead. It is difficult, then, to recommend a non-Bayesian solely for the cogency of their critique of Bayesianism. Also, when a Bayesian criticizes the method, at least he or she reliably knows something about what they are critiquing. That's often not the case with critics who aren't Bayesians (currently or formerly).

 

[IanS]

What is it then? An analogy or a principle applicable to the critical analysis of the gospels? The two things are different. What in God's name do clear legal precedents have to do with it? The standard of evidence required to send someone to prison is not applicable in analysis of ancient literary sources. Nobody here is claiming the sort of certainty desirable in a court of law. What is being discussed is a probability of a hypothesis. In consideration of that, the Bible is valid evidence, or the NT contains useful information that may throw light in this question. Courts of law rightly don't work that way. They have the obligation as well as the luxury of throwing out an abundance of evidence simply because it doesn't meet these standards, while scholars of ancient religions carefully sift every item for the slightest clue. Detectives, not judges.

What is it? It's a very carefully decided determination by all modern legal systems, which rules out any consideration of that sort of anonymous hearsay, entirely. Because it is inherently unreliable and likely to mislead you into drawing entirely false conclusions.

The principle here is identical. And it's not a matter of the evidence itself reaching a standard of being judged to be correct beyond all reasonable doubt - that consideration of "beyond all reasonable doubt" applies only to the jury's final decision taking all evidence into account (inc. all the witnesses that actually were produced before the Jury and who gave very precise and accurate evidence, such as DNA evidence and first-hand confirmed accounts etc).

The witness evidence is NOT allowed or disallowed on the basis that it must be "beyond all reasonable doubt" before being presented to the Jury. When you say that, you and others here (Dave did it also, sorry to say) you are completely mistaking and completely misrepresenting the situation - the witness evidence, such as the gospel testimony, does NOT have to meet any standard of being "beyond all reasonable doubt".

But what the legal system in all modern democratic nations has found, and properly decided, through a century or more of very careful examination and case reviews etc., is that certain types of evidence are inherently so completely unreliable that they must not be presented before any jury at all. Because that sort of evidence is so inherently unreliable that any consideration of it all is likely to lead the jurors into beliefs that are completely mistaken and totally unjustified. And that almost always includes hearsay evidence, and absolutely always includes hearsay evidence claimed anonymously by unknown witnesses who cannot be traced, cannot appear before the jury, are cannot therefore confirm anything at all that was claimed to have been said in their name (an unknown name!).


If you, Dave, and many others here insist on looking in that sort of anonymous hearsay gospel writing, saying that it might contain something we should believe, that is a matter for your own judgement. I’m not telling you cannot do that.

What I am pointing out is that precisely this question of evidence has been very thoroughly examined by the legal system. And their finding is that such evidence is so inherently unreliable, and such witness are so inherently ("proven" by the nature of their own statements) to be entirely & completely untrustworthy, that it’s not safe in any measure at all to assume that any part of what they have said may be true at all. None of it. The whole statement has to go.

So to repeat - I’m not telling you that you must not try to evaluate it. I’m telling you that serious, proper and very careful, legal consideration has gone deeply into this very question, and shown that such evidence can never be trusted in any part.

If you want to trust it nevertheless, then you risk doing precisely what your critics have accused you of in these threads, ie drawing unwarranted conclusions from inherently flawed evidential sources by trying to cherry-pick certain words and sentences which you think might possibly be true … but the point of the legal ruling is that such attempts at cherry-picking from such a rotten barrel of discredited fruit is only likely to lead you to draw entirely mistaken conclusions built by using inherently rotten evidential sources.

What seems to me to be happening here is that you and many others here wish so much to say that Jesus was probably real for a variety of reasons (eg not necessarily out of any religious belief, but instead for example because you feel so sure that bible scholars who you call "historians" must surely be right), that you are convincing yourself that although the bible is your only known source of evidence, you must follow the "historians" and use it to support that wish, even though in any other field or area of discussion, you would, I hope, never rely on anything so obviously awful as the clearly fallacious biblical writing. You want to make a case for a real Jesus, because you think, for example, that puts you on the side of academic experts and you think that surely must be the correct and sensible position to take …but that is leading you to follow the inadmissible practice of using inherently flawed sources as your crucial, and in fact only, body of evidence.

It may be good enough “evidence” for you and many others in this thread (even though it‘s legally unacceptable in it‘s entirety as credible evidence in any part). But personally I want something of a far higher standard than the biblical writing, before I venture an opinion either way on whether the figure described in the bible was ever likely to be a real person or not.

He may have been real. But the evidence for that should never be concluded from something as demonstrably inadmissible, untrustworthy, and clearly fictional in large part, as religious devotional writing of ancient superstitions in a book of preaching stories such as the Bible (and ditto most other such ancient religious writing too, probably).

 

[Belz...]

What is it? It's a very carefully decided determination by all modern legal systems, which rules out any consideration of that sort of anonymous hearsay, entirely. Because it is inherently unreliable and likely to mislead you into drawing entirely false conclusions.

The principle here is identical.

No, Ian. History is not a court of law, any more than science is. They are different things that may or may not have different standards. Can you give reasons why they should have the same standards, other than your say so ?

 

[The Norseman]

No, Ian. History is not a court of law, any more than science is. They are different things that may or may not have different standards. Can you give reasons why they should have the same standards, other than your say so ?

Maybe he'll answer your question. He still hasn't answered mine and I consider us essentially on the same side.

 

[IanS]

Maybe he'll answer your question. He still hasn't answered mine and I consider us essentially on the same side.

Which one? Remind me and I will reply to it.

 

[dejudge]

Josh McDowell's definition of the scientific method shows the man is totally clueless: "The scientific method can be used to prove only repeatable things. It isn’t adequate for proving or disproving questions about person or events in history"

Such a statement makes absolutely no sense. It is so incredible absurd that it appears to be a product of anti-intellectualism


It is through science that we are learning more and more about the history of mankind.

People now know that history of mankind PREDATES the myth fables of Creation in Genesis.

Thanks to Science!!!

Science has destroyed HJ and the God of the Jews.

Science will perhaps unravel the history of the Entire Universe.

By the way, thanks to Science, it now appears that the God of the Jews and the Logos created Man long AFTER Man and Dinosaurs were already on earth.

Jesus in the NT is a FAKE Creator based on Science.

 

[The Norseman]

Which one? Remind me and I will reply to it.

Well, more specifically, I had asked you for some information from courtroom rules of evidence which supported your contention that certain evidence is inadmissible. I ask this because you are very focused on using a courtroom analogy for the production of evidence for an HJ ("the HJ").

ETA: I don't mind if you do not wish to produce any evidence of your contention. I think you'd want to further support it, though.

 

[tsig]

No, Ian. History is not a court of law, any more than science is. They are different things that may or may not have different standards. Can you give reasons why they should have the same standards, other than your say so ?

The law tries to determine the truth of something that happened in the past just as history does.

 

[dejudge]

The law tries to determine the truth of something that happened in the past just as history does.

Not the Law!!!

It is the EVIDENCE.

Defendants are charged because of Evidence that appear to support the charges.

The Juror use the EVIDENCE presented and make a determination of guilt or innocence.

The Law determines the charge and the punishment.

If there is NO evidence then there is NO charge and NO trial---That is the Law.

HJers have NO evidence for their UNKNOWN DEAD HJ.

The LAW cannot help them.

The HJ argument MUST be immediately dismissed--there is NO evidence--That is the Law.

 

[The Norseman]

I expect one of my colleagues will be along soon to dump this derail to AAH, but we've had nothing but dejudge basically saying "nuh-uh!" when confronted with established scholarship for 30 pages now. I figured I would try to lighten things up a bit.

"Established scholarship"? You do know, surely, that established scholarship has been very, very wrong in the past over a great number of things? Have you ever questioned the HJ and if so, how did you go about it? I'll take a guess and say that you'll come back with "I read some books on it from some guys who all form a huge consensus so therefore, it's true."

"Prove me wrong" as Brainache is wont to say.

 

[Brainache]

"Established scholarship"? You do know, surely, that established scholarship has been very, very wrong in the past over a great number of things? Have you ever questioned the HJ and if so, how did you go about it? I'll take a guess and say that you'll come back with "I read some books on it from some guys who all form a huge consensus so therefore, it's true."

"Prove me wrong" as Brainache is wont to say.

Yeah, because you know what is in those History Books? Nothing. No one ever learned anything from books, so why bother? It's just page after page of historians patting each other on the back, no evidence or reasoning in there, no sirree.

 

[jhunter1163]

"Established scholarship"? You do know, surely, that established scholarship has been very, very wrong in the past over a great number of things? Have you ever questioned the HJ and if so, how did you go about it? I'll take a guess and say that you'll come back with "I read some books on it from some guys who all form a huge consensus so therefore, it's true."

"Prove me wrong" as Brainache is wont to say.

Well, you'd be half right. I've read books, yes, but I've also watched the Carrier video since he seems to be carrying the flag for the MJ people these days. It was interesting, but not compelling. As someone else in one of these threads said, he gave me no reason to toss out the current consensus in favor of his theory.

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson
Why do you characterize those who disagree you as "spitting" when they do their work? They used to be "running." What we would actually be doing in the situations you describe is called "modeling." No bodily fluids, netiher sweat nor spit, are necessarily involved.

I wasn't characterizing anyone with slander; that was not the intention.
I have mentioned previously that part of my day job is programming (which also means that I get tasked with anything to do with computers or models of any form).
If my manager comes to me and asks about a particular prediction model that we have for call volume to staff capacity, and wants to see how a given change might affect the outcome, then I would say the vernacular to her of something like, "I'll go run the computations and see what values spit out".

So I wasn't intending to belittle anything; I would use the same slang for myself (and have) regarding the results (I picked up this term of "spit" from my Mother's computer teacher back in the early 80's, who had been working on computer systems since back when they used punch cards, and he referred to the output as "spitting" in reference to a printed out result, which tended to be pushed out at the end of the printing with a final "spit"-like action).

I apologize if this offended you; it surely was not the intention.

The interpretation of probability which Bayesian methods implement is especially apt for unique, unprecedented and otherwise irreproducible eventss. Even the most determined Bayesian critic, Karl Popper, conceded the usefulness of probability for such events. He rejected the Bayesian view, of course, but championed a very similar propensitist interpretation.

Even a frequentist would point out that it is not their teaching that an event is literally repeated, but that the event belongs to a "reference class" of events, plural. Every event which can be uniquely identified is necessarily unique. Frequentists do not imagine that Groundhog Day was a documentary.

Yes, and the reference class is what I am referring to.
You need more than one event in the reference class if you want a reasonable number in the output.
I am not stating that you cannot derive a value, only that the value is not reliable beyond the limitations of the data entered into it.

I don't need a BT model to understand, for instance, that the Jesus tome is limited in like data to enter into the reference class.
The entire Jesus phenomenon is like one bit of data.

The way Carrier solves this problem is by comparing the data within the accounts against known data outside of the accounts.
That's one solution, but that assumes that the text's data indicates whether or not there was or was not a Jesus.

Instead, it would be far more helpful if we had 3 such like figures and some verified standing on their historicity, in which then the question we would be capable of asking would be whether it is likely that the central figure of these texts existed, given that a body of theological texts arose around the central figure.

Unfortunately, Buddha is about the only other figure with a similar phenomenon surrounding the figure, and Buddha is no better attested than Jesus when critically examined beyond historical inheritance.

And what method can, Jayson, in your view?

I didn't offer that there must be one.
I don't think there must be a best choice when the data is too low to suffice for such processes.

If we only have one shot fired in artillery before the high-tech sensory age (or in the absence of such availability), then we don't know where the target is.
We can't force a solution from one shot; as much as I would appreciate such.
We must wait for more shots, or we must begin to make shots our selves to narrow the probability regarding the location of the target (assuming that it is a mostly stationary target).

Or to put this another way, and I am not attempting to be snide or rude, BT cannot tell you where an opponents ship is with one shot in Battleship.
It can give you a probability, but the individual must keep in mind that the first probability is not the probability to rest on, and that more data will need to be entered later to refine the probability.

Jesus, having only really Buddha in like fashion, is almost exactly akin to a single shot probability.

The only way we'll get a 'second shot' pass on the model is if we find out that Buddha did or did not exist as an entirely solid proven with no room for debate (let's say we find his skeleton, or something of that caliber whereby it is Archaeological proof that verifies the matter; or we find a text talking about the creation of the Buddha myth prior to the theological text's dates).

Then we could run (hope that doesn't bother you) the probability through a second pass.
That would help refine the probability, but it would still not rule out the error of the probability due to limited data.

Turing, for example, was rather successful, in part, due to the shear amount of bits of data available for multiple passes and refining the probabilities.
Turing did not run a single bit and let it then determine what the final probability was.

Does this mean BT is useless?
No.
Does this mean that BT is a bad tool?
No.
Do I think more folks within the Historical society could benefit from applying BT?
Yes.
Do I think BT should outright replace the entire Historical Method?
No.

I'm not equating anyone to anything, nor attempting to belittle anyone for appreciating BT.
I am, instead, stating that what was earlier offered was a bit off the mark in just resting the Jesus case of historicity on BT entirely.
I would hold the same about the application of BT for the historicity of Buddha, and I would say that the same could be argued regarding Hipocrates and nearly all Kings of Egypt of the 13th dynasty; though these figures are not directly comparable to Jesus and Buddha.

 

[dejudge]

Or to put this another way, and I am not attempting to be snide or rude, BT cannot tell you where an opponents ship is with one shot in Battleship.
It can give you a probability, but the individual must keep in mind that the first probability is not the probability to rest on, and that more data will need to be entered later to refine the probability.

The Bayesian Theorem is not a mathematical equation to determine the position of Battleships.

The Bayesian Theorem only puts a numerical value to Probability after Data is applied.

Look at the example again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#Introductory_example

If someone spoke to a person with long hair what is the PROBABILITY that it was a woman if 75% of women and 15% of men have long hair.

Without even applying the Bayesian formula it can be logically deduce that it is probably a woman based on the data presented.

Now when the data is applied to the Bayesian Theorem, we get a NUMERICAL value of 83% PROBABILITY.

That is all. We just have a Numerical value.


Probability of W/L= 0.75X0.50/(0.75X0.50 +0.50X0.15) =0.83

Does this mean BT is useless?
No.
Does this mean that BT is a bad tool?
No.
Do I think more folks within the Historical society could benefit from applying BT?
Yes.
Do I think BT should outright replace the entire Historical Method?
No.

Who is arguing that the Bayesian Theorem should outright replace the entire Historical Method?

You are arguing against your own strawman.

 

[JaysonR]

The Bayesian Theorem is not a mathematical equation to determine the position of Battleships.

BT was used in World War II for the specific purpose of aiding in locating German U-Boats and worked by employing multiple passes of data through it to better isolate the location of the target; almost identical to the system at the same time being used by artillery.

The Bayesian Theorem only puts a numerical value to Probability after Data is applied.

Yes.

Who is arguing that the Bayesian Theorem should outright replace the entire Historical Method?

BT entered as a tangent motivated from your entry of Carrier on post 1782, following the tangent of discussion which circled around not inheriting a positive as the Historical Method does (which you quoted me from a discussion with IanS where IanS was discussing the position of the negative over an inherited positive, to which I was last responding to from post 1771; to which you pointed out that Carrier knows the Historical Method and concludes Jesus doesn't exist, and Norseman, in post 1861, popped in and discussed the null hypothesis and Carrier's work, along with BT, to which later I clarified...and the conversation continued onward from there; bouncing between attempts to apply the Legal system and Bayes' Theorem over the logic of the Historical Method.

So the conversation began, before BT was even brought in, with a discussion proposing that the Historical Method was in poor form and that the negative non-inherited position should be the default position in History, rather than the positive inherited position.


So BT being brought in under that context simply inherited the same tangent's application of using other methods than the Historical Method.

 

[David Mo]

Namely, you are saying that although you accept that the bible is not reliable as evidence, you think we can overlook the most obvious errors such as miracles and then consider what is left, and then as you put it -

" ... draw some historical truth that refers to some fact or some belief that the Bible hides. "

I was not thinking in miracles. I referred previously to the subject of the crucifixion which is almost the only one who can reveal a fact behind biblical myths, I believe. The deconstruction of the narratives on miracles can get some indications of how Jesus was seen in first century of Christianity. For example, it is very interesting the so-called 'messianic secret'. That is, the occasions on which Jesus silences a witness of his exploits. They were some early Christians who believed that Jesus' doctrine was esoteric and should not be revealed to those outside the sect. This is data that can be taken out from the Gospels, though it doesn’t refer to an actual event, but to an embarrassing image of Jesus.

Another example: although Paul's epistles don't are reliable (I think you should go with caution because they are self-promotion) can be drawn from them some conclusions. For example, on the role that women played in the early churches. Here you can infer the leading role of some women in the early churches. This is a fact taken from a text of dubious reliability.

The legal position on anonymous hearsay testimony like that is that NONE of it is fit to be put before the consideration of the jury at all. NONE OF IT!

I agree the "legal" argument is not valid.

For good reasons juries are prevented from hearing weak evidence.

A simile is only good as a simile. You can not extend it to the point that all the aspects of the objects being compared be matched. I did not bring here the simile of the legal process, but it seemed valid only to the extent that it sheds light on the method of review the validity of the evidence in history. This method is the same, with differences of degree and rigor, in any circumstance in which we have to evaluate a witness, whether anonymous or not.

Of course, there are specific differences for different research methods. It is logical that anonymous reports are not admitted in legal courts. But this limitation is not useful for the History where we often admit either anonymous texts, or inscriptions or pseudepigrapha. What matters is that we should apply an epistemological caution, which is unfortunately missing in the case of confessional historians and others.

Abstract: you can not refuse testimonies in History with the pretext they are anonymous or biased. If not, you finish off the Ancient History.

Otherwise, an evangelist is not Thucydides and we must apply different levels of distrust.

What seems to me to be happening here is that you and many others here wish so much to say that Jesus was probably real for a variety of reasons (eg not necessarily out of any religious belief, but instead for example because you feel so sure that bible scholars who you call "historians" must surely be right), that you are convincing yourself that although the bible is your only known source of evidence, you must follow the "historians" and use it to support that wish, even though in any other field or area of discussion, you would, I hope, never rely on anything so obviously awful as the clearly fallacious biblical writing. You want to make a case for a real Jesus, because you think, for example, that puts you on the side of academic experts and you think that surely must be the correct and sensible position to take …but that is leading you to follow the inadmissible practice of using inherently flawed sources as your crucial, and in fact only, body of evidence.

You are wrong. I have said several times that the so-called consensus of confessional historians is a biased consensus because their theories are highly conditioned by their religious beliefs. And I have also said that if I think the probability that Jesus existed is high is because the miticists theories seem more unlikely. I have no intention to join biblical historians or to claim that the evangelists' narratives are reliable documents. And I interpret CraigB’s position as similar to mine unless he says otherwise .

 

[dejudge]

Your spellcheck had made your post amusing at least. Good show! But you don't address the points I was treating ironically in my last. Having defined it out of any possible existence, you ask for it in vain, or rather purely rhetorically. And you don't read anything you don't accept as evidence. At the risk of being accused of bickering, (which I do not intend; I strive merely to register a mild protest) I find this approach so arrogant as to be unhelpful. As you know, the evidence you reject as non-existent is accepted as evidence by the scholarship of the Academy, and rightly so. The dispute there is how robust it is, and whether the case for HJ is relatively strong or weak. You reject all this with astonishing and inexplicable abusiveness ("worthless empty froth"), and declare that it is not evidence at all. That is untenable and unwarranted.

What evidence is accepted by the scholarship of the Academy? Where is it? Is it in the Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger?