The assassination of Caesar vs. the resurrection of Jesus

[ZackMartin]

This is where things start to break down as we’ve seen over the last few posts. First, we must argue in a circle and assume all the assassination claims and resurrection claims that we plug into the formula really did happen. So in a sense we’ve put the cart before the horse here. Let’s set this aside for the moment.

We don't have to argue in a circle, except to the extent that all human reasoning is circular to a degree. (See Münchhausen Trilemma, regress argument, coherentism).

We can apply the principle "Most generally accepted historical claims are true". This claim is compatible with any single one of those being wrong (e.g. Julius Caesar was assassinated), or even a few of them to be wrong. But it enables us to use what is generally accepted to estimate probabilities, and then if this assumption is true our estimate will not be too far from correct. If we deny this principle, then we are embracing such an extreme historical scepticism, so as to make the practice of history impossible. If you start by doubting everything, then you can't accept any historical claims until you've personally demonstrated them from first principles, and many historical arguments rely on other historical arguments (e.g. X is unlikely given what we know of the culture of the period - but then our knowledge of the culture of the period .) The only realistic option is to start with the view that the established historical narrative is mostly right, which still enables you to doubt any single event, or handful of events.

Other suggestions: Estimate probabilities based on generally accepted claims, then correct that using an estimate of how many of those claims are wrong. There are a few ways one could generate such an estimate: (1) using one's own gut (worst way), (2) using a professional historian's gut (better), (3) using the collective gut of a diverse group of professional historians, as determined by a survey (even better), (4) through a historical study to try to determine what percentage of past generally accepted historical claims turned out to be wrong (even even better).

In the case of disputed events like the Resurrection, another approach is to identify the major schools of thought on the issue, and assume each of them true, and then calculate the probability given that assumption. That then gives us a range of probabilities. And that's what I've done. The two most important schools of thought on the Resurrection are the believing Christian, and the sceptical. Both estimate a low intrinsic probability, although the sceptical probability will be several orders of magnitude lower. (Some sceptics would even say exactly zero, but I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion even given a naturalistic worldview.)

Secondly, we are going to disagree on the data selection parameters. You incorrectly wanted the assassination of Caesar to be grouped as a general murder thus giving the assassination a much higher intrinsic probability than deserved. No one will argue resurrection claims are as common as a murder claims in the general populace. So the deck gets stacked in your favour by committing a blatant categorical fallacy.

On the contrary, I used the data available to me to get some idea - it was an attempt at a first cut, at a ballpark figure. And you underestimate the probability of assassination, because you seem to assume that if assassinations are unlikely today, they must have been equally unlikely in the past, when there is good reason to believe the probability of assassination is not temporally, geographically or culturally constant, and that assassinations are less likely today (especially in democratic, developed countries) than they were in previous eras.

However, if we kept the assassination of Caesar in its correct contextual group of assassinations of heads of state

now you are restricting to assassinations of heads of state only. What justifies that restriction? Many non-heads of state have been assassinated: Robert F. Kennedy (not a head of state, but a candidate to become one), Indira Gandhi (the Prime Minister of India is not the head of state, the President of India is; the Prime Minister is head of government), Rajiv Gandhi (former Prime Minister of India at time of his assassination), Spencer Perceval (British Prime Minister, not head of state - King George III was titular head of state at the time, and his son George IV was acting in that role in practice), Lord Cavendish (British government minister in charge of Ireland, assassinated by Irish nationalists), Richard Sharples (Governor of Bermuda - not head of state, Queen Elizabeth II is, but he was her representative), Count Folke Bernadotte (not a head of state, but UN monitor in Jerusalem, assassinated by Zionists), Benazir Bhutto (former Prime Minister, election candidate at time of her assassination, had never been head of state). This seems like an arbitrary distinction.

there are maybe a thousand in history (and I think that is being generous)?

Let's say for the minute your figure is correct. But if we remove the arbitrary restriction to head of state only, there will be quite a few more, and so the probability will be higher. Also, if the comparison class is heads of state, then the correct denominator is all the heads of state who have ever lived, not everyone who has ever lived.

Weighed against all deaths in human history the assassination of Caesar has a very low intrinsic probability then, not much different than Jesus’ resurrection if we weigh resurrection claims against total deaths in human history.

What percentage of these resurrection claims do you believe are (1) real, (2) actually comparable to Jesus' resurrection (i.e. not swoon theory)? I don't think the comparison is between "claims of assassinations" vs. "claims of resurrections". In both cases, we have to restrict ourselves to claims we honestly believe are more likely than not true. Of course, since different people accept different claims, this process gives different answers for different people. But it still gives us a bound of probability (e.g. Christian probability as best case, sceptical probability as worst case.)

Now, you could argue that heads of state are a special category so we need to find the intrinsic probability of the assassination of a head of state using the data of only heads of state in history. This will likely increase its intrinsic probability from what it would be if we weighed assassinations of heads of state against total human deaths in history.

Why should we put heads of state in a special category? Many assassinations are not of a head of state. The Prime Minister of India has a far greater risk of being assassinated than the head of state - so far, two Indian Prime Ministers have been assassinated, and zero Indian Presidents. Likewise, so far one Prime Minister of Israel has been assassinated, and zero Israeli Presidents. In both countries, the Prime Minister is the much more notable figure, in both domestic and international politics, so is much more of a target. So arguably, in both these countries, the head of state is less likely to be assassinated than other political figures, such as the head of government.

But then we should also rightly categorize Jesus in a special category as well should we not?

How many people will be in this category other than Jesus? If the category is too small, it becomes impossible to use it to estimate probabilities.

So we get bogged down here because you feel the category would be too small for Jesus even though the category of Roman Emperors itself is too small (probably around 95 of them) and the category of heads of state, though likely bigger than Roman Emperors, is likely still too small as well to estimate probabilities with any real certainty.

There are at least several thousand heads of state in history, and when we remove your arbitrary limitation to heads of state only, it becomes a lot larger. How many people are there comparable to Jesus? The smaller the sample size, the more likely the estimated probability is wrong.

As you stated in your last post to me:So we should have sample groups of at least 100,000 apparently to estimate probabilities. There certainly weren’t 100,000 Roman Emperors, we know that. But were there at least 100,000 heads of state or leaders of countries in human history? I don’t know, how would we even figure that out with any accuracy? See how precarious this becomes in practice?

I was speaking imprecisely. There is no absolute minimum sample size. But, as the sample size falls, the error in the calculated probability rises. Generally speaking, the smaller the sample size, the larger the error. When the sample size gets to 1, the error is very close to 100%. From a sample of size 1, all you can really say is that if the event happens, the probability is greater than zero, and if it doesn't happen, well you can't say much at all. Such a small sample as one effectively including only Jesus tells us no more than the next larger relevant sample does.

But how on earth do we actually do this in an objective practical way? How do we assign numerical values to evidence to find out how reliable it is? Craig, in his debate with Ehrman, doesn’t go this far. In principle it all sounds great, but the practical execution of it is quite fuzzy.

He accepts it in principle; and even though he doesn't believe in calculating numbers, he does believe in evaluating our informal natural language arguments about likelihood for how well they agree with the mathematics of probability - that's what he attacks Ehrman on. He seems to accept it far more than you do.

Patently false. In the Q&A Craig responds to a question over the probability calculus he presented in the debate. Craig said:

I myself don't use the probability calculus in arguing for resurrection of Jesus. The reason I brought it up is because of the response to the Humean sort of argument that Dr. Ehrman was offering, which I think is completely misconceived because he tries to say that the resurrection is improbable simply because of the improbability of the resurrection on the background information alone. In fact, I think that that probability is inscrutable, given that we're dealing with a free agent. I don't see how we can assess or assign specific numbers for those. So the way in which I argue for the resurrection is not by using the probability calculus. It's by using what's called "inference to the best explanation," which is the way historians normally work. That is to say, you assess competing historical hypotheses in terms of criteria like: explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, degree of ad hoc-ness, concordance with accepted beliefs, and so on and so forth.

So although Craig uses probability calculus in the debate with Ehrman, he does not “endorse” the use of it in arguing for the resurrection.

Craig is the one who brings up the mathematics of probability, not Ehrman. So yes, he doesn't believe in using it numerically; but he does believe in using it symbolically - which is exactly what he does in that debate. And saying although Craig uses probability calculus in the debate with Ehrman, he does not “endorse” the use of it in arguing for the resurrection is a bit strange given that he was using it to undermine one of Ehrman's arguments against the resurrection as a historical conclusion - so he was indeed using it in arguing for the resurrection. He does believe in using it to argue for the resurrection, just not numerically. (And Richard Swinburne - a Christian philosopher of similar or even greater standing to Craig - does believe in using it numerically.)

In other words, the context Craig uses the theorem is to weigh the probability of the resurrection hypothesis against competing naturalistic hypotheses to show the resurrection hypothesis is stronger than its competitors. He does not use the theorem to weigh hypotheses between the resurrection and other historical events such as the assassination of Caesar. So although he uses it, he doesn’t use it in the context we are debating in this thread.

If you are willing to use a principle in one context, then you must be willing to use it in another context, unless you have good reason to suppose the contexts are sufficiently and relevantly different that the principal becomes inapplicable. To do otherwise is special pleading. The fact that Craig is willing to use the principle in one context, suggests he must believe it is at least potentially applicable in other contexts. But I suppose to really answer this question, we'd have to ask him. (And from what I hear he gets way too much mail, and very often does not respond to mail from strangers as a result.)

[Juice]

So using Juice's own source, Juice's own parameters and Juice's own massaged figures*, assassination was still the second commonest cause of death for Roman Emperors, and not remotely extraordinary. Game Over.

Quite so. The difficulty I see is that Juice's standard for extraordinariness includes events that are as common as, say, having a birthday in February.

My point was always, that "extraordinary" is a relative term. Dying from murder is always going to be extraordinary, but what is it's relative extraordinariness compared to someone rising from the dead in the way it is claimed Jesus did?

(emphasis added by Zack)

Do try to keep up Roy.

[Juice]

On the contrary, I used the data available to me to get some idea - it was an attempt at a first cut, at a ballpark figure. And you underestimate the probability of assassination, because you seem to assume that if assassinations are unlikely today, they must have been equally unlikely in the past, when there is good reason to believe the probability of assassination is not temporally, geographically or culturally constant, and that assassinations are less likely today (especially in democratic, developed countries) than they were in previous eras.

Fair enough. But then we must look to make our sample category of assassinations reflective of the geographical location, time, and culture relevant to Caesar’s assassination, yes? To argue otherwise would seem to be special pleading in light of what you've written above.

But what will be that sample group? If we use Roman Emperors from say within 100 years of Caesar that group is quite small, only about five - Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. If we expand the group beyond Roman Emperors to a larger sampling from other geographical/cultural locations from around the time of Caesar the new locations/cultures introduced into the group may be different enough that they do not accurately reflect the probability of Caesars’s assassination. If we expand out the group of Roman Emperors to include Emperors after Claudius those Emperors may be from a time frame that is different enough from Caesar’s that we may be introducing new data into the sample group that doesn’t accurately reflect the probability of Caesar’s assassination either. In other words, the farther removed from Caesar the data we introduce is in terms of culture, location, time, etc. the less sure we can be it accurately reflects the probability of Caesar’s assassination.

now you are restricting to assassinations of heads of state only. What justifies that restriction? Many non-heads of state have been assassinated: Robert F. Kennedy (not a head of state, but a candidate to become one), Indira Gandhi (the Prime Minister of India is not the head of state, the President of India is; the Prime Minister is head of government), Rajiv Gandhi (former Prime Minister of India at time of his assassination), Spencer Perceval (British Prime Minister, not head of state - King George III was titular head of state at the time, and his son George IV was acting in that role in practice), Lord Cavendish (British government minister in charge of Ireland, assassinated by Irish nationalists), Richard Sharples (Governor of Bermuda - not head of state, Queen Elizabeth II is, but he was her representative), Count Folke Bernadotte (not a head of state, but UN monitor in Jerusalem, assassinated by Zionists), Benazir Bhutto (former Prime Minister, election candidate at time of her assassination, had never been head of state). This seems like an arbitrary distinction.

I don’t think the distinction is as arbitrary as you think. Leaders of countries are particular targets for assassination in a way that politicians of a lesser position are not. I should think is intuitively self evident not needing further explanation. You said yourself that, “The US President likely has the best security of any person on earth.” Well why is that? Probably because a) arguably the President of the U.S.A is the number one potential target for an assassination on earth and b) he has immense resources at his disposal to make that happen. Why doesn’t John McCain for instance have that same level of security? Because McCain isn’t the President. The position of leader of one’s country carries with it an inherent higher level of risk (in terms of assassination) that other lesser political roles simply do not. For this reason the security is expected to be higher for the leader of a country which inherently makes it more difficult to assassinate the leader which lowers the inherent probability that the leader will be assassinated.

Even if you do not agree with my assessment you must agree that the context of Caesar is leader of one’s country. To draw data from outside this group would be fallacious for the reasons I’ve given. Now, I see no reason to necessarily restrict the data to only those that carry the title “Head of State.” I think anyone that is the unquestionable leader of an entire country would qualify. But I think that group will still be relatively small in terms of assassinations. For example we could include assassinated heads of state – about 70, assassinated heads of government (a list which includes Spencer Perceval) – about 63, assassinated US Presidents – 4, assassinated Byzantine emperors – 6, and Roman Emperors – about 36. To be generous we could even add murdered Monarchs (though I don’t know if all would qualify as an assassination, but let’s not quibble) – about 162. That’s a total of about 341 so far in history (or at least as many wiki recorded anyway). Let’s not forget this includes some people that are very far removed from Caesar in terms of geography, culture, and time. So many of these may not accurately reflect the probability of Caesar’s assassination. But feel free to add more. I suspect the list won’t be orders of magnitude larger.

On the other hand, I haven’t got a clue how many leaders of countries there have been throughout history to use as a denominator. Can you come up with a reasonable number?

Let's say for the minute your figure is correct. But if we remove the arbitrary restriction to head of state only, there will be quite a few more, and so the probability will be higher. Also, if the comparison class is heads of state, then the correct denominator is all the heads of state who have ever lived, not everyone who has ever lived.

That’s what I was trying to say – the denominator is all heads of state (or more accurately let’s say all leaders of countries). My suspicion, based upon the above, is you may struggle to get 1,000 assassinated leaders of countries even if we do remove the restriction of only “Heads of State."

What percentage of these resurrection claims do you believe are (1) real, (2) actually comparable to Jesus' resurrection (i.e. not swoon theory)? I don't think the comparison is between "claims of assassinations" vs. "claims of resurrections". In both cases, we have to restrict ourselves to claims we honestly believe are more likely than not true. Of course, since different people accept different claims, this process gives different answers for different people. But it still gives us a bound of probability (e.g. Christian probability as best case, sceptical probability as worst case.)

(1) I don’t know and I’m not sure how my personal belief has any relevance here. (2) Comparable to Jesus’ resurrection in the sense of a merely returning to life from the state of being dead? Well, I guess all of them. How many are comparable to Jesus’ resurrection if we consider all the details that make Jesus’ resurrection unique? None as far as I can tell (though some might be close in some respects).

But let me turn the same questions back to you. What percentage of these assassination claims in history are (1) real, (2) actually comparable to Caesar’s assassination - e.g.. 1) a grand conspiracy involving as many as 80 senators that 2) stabbed the father of their country using nothing but daggers and 3) did so in broad daylight in front of the entire senate with 4) no apparent interference from guards or witnesses? (We could add more unique details, but that is enough for now)

How many people will be in this category other than Jesus? If the category is too small, it becomes impossible to use it to estimate probabilities.

But strictly speaking Caesar’s category is quite small as well. In fact, when we consider the details surrounding his assassination we might find his category is composed of only one as well. I’m sorry that Jesus is a unique case. What would you like me to say here? Shall we just arbitrarily add others into his category for the sake of adding others into his category so we can estimate probabilities?

I was speaking imprecisely. There is no absolute minimum sample size. But, as the sample size falls, the error in the calculated probability rises. Generally speaking, the smaller the sample size, the larger the error. When the sample size gets to 1, the error is very close to 100%. From a sample of size 1, all you can really say is that if the event happens, the probability is greater than zero, and if it doesn't happen, well you can't say much at all. Such a small sample as one effectively including only Jesus tells us no more than the next larger relevant sample does.

Okay. But if you only use Roman Emperors within 100 years of Caesar your sample size is only about 5. But is 5 big enough to ensure accuracy? If it is surely one or two is as well in the case of Jesus then. You could expand that number out to include all Roman Emperors, which is about 95. Now, I’m not sure that is a large enough sample size to ensure any reasonable accuracy. Not to mention you are then drawing data from 500-600 years after the event in question. You complain the sample size of one for Jesus is too small, but I don’t see how you are going to get a large enough sample size for Caesar that will ensure accuracy in estimating Caesar’s assassination without committing some type of categorical fallacy either.

[Craig] accepts [Bayes’ theorem] in principle; and even though he doesn't believe in calculating numbers, he does believe in evaluating our informal natural language arguments about likelihood for how well they agree with the mathematics of probability - that's what he attacks Ehrman on. He seems to accept it far more than you do.

I don’t think anyone is saying Craig denies Bayes’ theorem (or a version of it) in principle. But I suppose you’d have to ask him to be sure. What he seems to frown upon is using it to argue for the resurrection of Jesus. To accept something in principle is not the same as “endorsing” the use of it. Surely you can see that.

Craig is the one who brings up the mathematics of probability, not Ehrman. So yes, he doesn't believe in using it numerically; but he does believe in using it symbolically - which is exactly what he does in that debate. And saying although Craig uses probability calculus in the debate with Ehrman, he does not “endorse” the use of it in arguing for the resurrection is a bit strange given that he was using it to undermine one of Ehrman's arguments against the resurrection as a historical conclusion - so he was indeed using it in arguing for the resurrection. He does believe in using it to argue for the resurrection, just not numerically. (And Richard Swinburne - a Christian philosopher of similar or even greater standing to Craig - does believe in using it numerically.)

What? Using your opponents own logic (arguments, evidence, tools, etc) to undermine the argument of your opponent is not the same as endorsing that logic (argument, evidence, tools, etc). That’s like saying an atheist “endorses” the Bible because he uses the Bible to undermine Christianity. Strange reasoning indeed.

Are we finished with the Craig diversion yet?

[shunyadragon]

I do not believe probability can be used in this case because of the highly variable values assign based on the very subjective view points of belief and non-belief.

The problem of comparing records of assassinations, such as Caesar's to the records of Resurrections is an apples and oranges argument. The issue is claims of miraculous events, and not mundane events that occur in records throughout history, which neither rare nor extraordinary. Extremely rare extraordinary events like 2 pound emeralds, are rare but not extraordinary in the sense miracles are.

The bottom line is that miracles cannot be determined as true nor false, not even in the relative sense like other mundane events in history. They are simply events believed by those who consider their scripture sacred and true regardless. they are usually religious events, believed by the faithful, but have no meaning nor foundation for those who do not believe the literature as sacred.

[ZackMartin]

What? Using your opponents own logic (arguments, evidence, tools, etc) to undermine the argument of your opponent is not the same as endorsing that logic (argument, evidence, tools, etc). That’s like saying an atheist “endorses” the Bible because he uses the Bible to undermine Christianity. Strange reasoning indeed.

Are we finished with the Craig diversion yet?

I'll respond to the rest of what you said later, but let me ask, who introduce equations about probability to the debate? Craig, not Ehrman; Ehrman skips over that whole issue in his response, suggesting this isn't something with which he is au fait. So it's not Ehrman's tool, it's Craig's tool, so his use of it can't be described in your terms.

[ZackMartin]

On the other hand, I haven’t got a clue how many leaders of countries there have been throughout history to use as a denominator. Can you come up with a reasonable number?

Well, we could start by assuming the current number of countries - around 200 is historically average. If we go back a few decades ago, there were only around 60 countries, since many countries today were then part of European colonial empires that have since crumbled. But on the other hand, many countries today are mergers of multiple former countries - for example Italy or Germany, both of which have only been a single unified country for a bit over a century. So I'd say 200 is a good first cut as an average.

Then, throughout history, how long did the average ruler rule? Let's say 25 years - in modern democracies, that would be very unusual, but I think the historical norm was closer to rulers living for life. How many years of history is our data drawn from? Let's say back to 500 BCE. So that's around 2500 years, which produces 100 25 year generations. So that works out to 20,000 leaders of countries throughout history? Does that sound like an unreasonable figure.

So if there are 341 assassinated "leaders", out of 20,000, that would produce 1.705% probability of assassination.

Of course, these are very guesstimate numbers I've produced. Let's say I could be an order of magnitude wrong either way. So that would give a range of figures from 2000 to 200,000. I think 2000 is likely just too low to be believable - and if that was true, then there would be a 17.05% chance of a leader of a country being assassinated. But 200,000 sounds plausible; using that figure, the probability would fall to 0.1705%

So do you think somewhere between 1.7% and 0.17% is a reasonable estimate of the probability of a country leader being assassinated?

What do you think by contrast the probability of a person being resurrected is?

[magellan004]

I do not believe probability can be used in this case because of the highly variable values assign based on the very subjective view points of belief and non-belief.

The problem of comparing records of assassinations, such as Caesar's to the records of Resurrections is an apples and oranges argument. The issue is claims of miraculous events, and not mundane events that occur in records throughout history, which neither rare nor extraordinary. Extremely rare extraordinary events like 2 pound emeralds, are rare but not extraordinary in the sense miracles are.

The bottom line is that miracles cannot be determined as true nor false, not even in the relative sense like other mundane events in history. They are simply events believed by those who consider their scripture sacred and true regardless. they are usually religious events, believed by the faithful, but have no meaning nor foundation for those who do not believe the literature as sacred.

You often bring up the argument 'They are just beliefs. ' (Compared to knowledge).
Let's say you had a report that :
Person A claimed X was true.
Person B claimed they knew X happened.
Person C believed X happened.
and let's say you had no access to these three people.

How would you work out which person was the most accurate? My guess is that you would guess that Person C is the most accurate but you would have no grounds for saying that.

Magellan

[Juice]

You are just not going to let this one go, are you.

I'll respond to the rest of what you said later, but let me ask, who introduce equations about probability to the debate? Craig, not Ehrman; Ehrman skips over that whole issue in his response, suggesting this isn't something with which he is au fait. So it's not Ehrman's tool, it's Craig's tool, so his use of it can't be described in your terms.

The question is who first introduced an argument from probability and introduced it incorrectly, Zack? Apparently it was Ehrman (I can’t remember if he did in the debate or if Craig said Ehrman had introduced it in one of his books). I’ll quote Craig again:

The reason I brought it up is because of the response to the Humean sort of argument that Dr. Ehrman was offering, which I think is completely misconceived because he tries to say that the resurrection is improbable simply because of the improbability of the resurrection on the background information alone.

Are we done yet here yet?

[Juice]

So do you think somewhere between 1.7% and 0.17% is a reasonable estimate of the probability of a country leader being assassinated?

Tell me how this in any way accurately reflects the probability that Caesar was assassinated when you are including in your estimate data from modern countries like Canada that have a 0% probability of assassination for example? The reality is Zack, using the criteria you have set out in this thread, we can’t actually estimate with any reasonable accuracy the probability of Caesar’s assassination.

What do you think by contrast the probability of a person being resurrected is?

A person or Jesus?

[Juice]

I’d like to move along to discussing the evidence for the assassination first. The “ECREE” mantra and arguments from probability have proven to be largely a waste of time in my opinion and tell us nothing about what actually happened in history.

Now it may be argued that the evidential support for Caesar’s assassination is much better in both quality and quantity therefore making the hill to justify belief in the assassination shorter.

But is this true? To the best of my knowledge I’ll outline the evidence for the assassination.

We’ll grant for the sake of argument (for now anyway) that the following works really were authored by the people traditionally assigned to them.

There are a few cryptic references to the assassination of Caesar found in some letters. Most notably the ones found in Cicero's 2nd Philippic. But these letters give us almost nothing in the way of details and Cicero is quite biased. At best they can be said to imply Caesar’s assassination. Further, Cicero was not a witness to the assassination so at best he constitutes a primary source that reports hearsay.

The first full narrative of the assassination comes down to us from Nicolaus of Damuscus found in his Life of Augustus written probably c. 14 AD which is about 60 years after the event. Let’s not forget Nicoluas was not an eyewitness and writes with a heavy bias. He also shows evidence of embellishment in the secondary details.

Paterculus has a brief mention of the assassination in his Roman History but again offers little in the way narrative or details. His work here is taken from a single badly corrupted manuscript discovered in the sixteenth century which is now lost. Setting this problem aside Paterculus reported hearsay c. 30 AD in a biased manner and is later than Nicolaus. Along with naming a few of the people involved all he says about the assassination is, ”But it was the lot of this great man [Julius Caesar], who behaved with such clemency in all his victories, that his peaceful enjoyment of supreme power should last but five months. For, returning to the city in October, he was slain on the ides of March.”

The next narrative comes from Plutarch found in his Parallel Lives c. 70AD about 114 years after the event. Plutarch was not an eyewitness either.

Suetonius also gives a narrative found in his The Twelve Caesars c. 120 AD a mere 164 years after the event.

I’m not aware of any coins depicting the assassination.

In sum:

1. There are no eyewitness accounts that I’m aware of for the assassination.
2. The first full narrative of the assassination comes about 60 years after the event from Nicolaus of Damascus.
3. The narratives we do have are relatively late (by late I mean not written during the lifetime of possible witnesses – with the possible exception of Nicolaus).
4. The narratives contradict each other on some significant details (see here for some examples)
5. Authors such Nicolaus write with a heavy bias.
6. Writers such as Nicoluas show evidence of embellishment.

If anyone else has evidence in support of the assassination to present or would like to correct what I’ve outlined above, now would be a good time to do it.

[shunyadragon]

You often bring up the argument 'They are just beliefs. ' (Compared to knowledge).
Let's say you had a report that :
Person A claimed X was true.
Person B claimed they knew X happened.
Person C believed X happened.
and let's say you had no access to these three people.

How would you work out which person was the most accurate? My guess is that you would guess that Person C is the most accurate but you would have no grounds for saying that.

Magellan

Insufficient information.

No, I would have to de made aware of all the evidence and reasons for what the claims and believe involved.

[shunyadragon]

I’d like to move along to discussing the evidence for the assassination first. The “ECREE” mantra and arguments from probability have proven to be largely a waste of time in my opinion and tell us nothing about what actually happened in history.

Give up on the ECREE and let's talk straight accepted academic historial methods/ Those that claim ECREE do not know how academic historians do things.

Now it may be argued that the evidential support for Caesar’s assassination is much better in both quality and quantity therefore making the hill to justify belief in the assassination shorter.

There in reality is no evidential support either way we simply writings that attest to the assassination. Short or long one stab or a hundred. Caesar is dead.

But is this true? To the best of knowledge I’ll outline the evidence for the assassination.

No actual evidence. No swords, blood nor body. All we have is historical records. from about the time of Caesar's death..

We’ll grant for the sake of argument (for now anyway) that the following works really were authored by the people traditionally assigned to them.

There are a few cryptic references to the assassination of Caesar found in some letters. Most notably the ones found in Cicero's 2nd Philippic. But these letters give us almost nothing in the way of details. At best they can be said to imply Caesar’s assassination. Further, Cicero was not a witness to the assassination so at best he constitutes a primary source that reports hearsay.

Historical records that are available do not qualify as hearsay. The conclusion that Caesar was assassinated in the manner written recording a rather mundane normal event are accepted until other records that differ of the events turn up. They are simply the present state of the historical records we have at the present time.

The first full narrative of the assassination comes down to us from Nicolaus of Damuscus found in his Life of Augustus written probably c. 14 AD which is about 60 years after the event. Let’s not forget Nicoluas was not an eyewitness and writes with a heavy bias. He also shows evidence of embellishment in the secondary details.

True, historians understand this possibility and take that into consideration.

Paterculus has a brief mention of the assassination in his Roman History but again offers little in the way narrative or details. His work here is taken from a single badly corrupted manuscript discovered in the sixteenth century which is now lost. Setting this problem aside Paterculus reported hearsay c. 30 AD in a biased manner and is later than Nicolaus. Along with naming a few of the people involved all he says about the assassination is, ”But it was the lot of this great man [Julius Caesar], who behaved with such clemency in all his victories, that his peaceful enjoyment of supreme power should last but five months. For, returning to the city in October, he was slain on the ides of March.”

The next narrative comes from Plutarch found in his Parallel Lives c. 70AD about 114 years after the event. Plutarch was not an eyewitness either.

Suetonius also gives a narrative found in his The Twelve Caesars c. 120 AD a mere 164 years after the event.

True, historians take the weaknesses of this records into account.

I’m not aware of any coins depicting the assassination.

I am not aware of any Roman, Greek or other ancient coins depicting any assassination.

If anyone else has evidence in support of the assassination to present or would like to correct what I’ve outlined above, now would be a good time to do it.

You outlined the available testimony available to historians, which is similar to much of our ancient history of the time, which is ok. I would not see how any of this is relevant to claims of miraculous events at any time in history.

Again, it is best to Dump ECREE, it is not used by academic historians, and those that use it are clueless as to how academic historical methods apply to these events.

[magellan004]

Insufficient information.

No, I would have to de made aware of all the evidence and reasons for what the claims and believe involved.

That was my point. You (and agnostics ) can't say 'The Christian doesn't 'know' , the Christian only 'believes' '.

Magellan

[lilpixieofterror]

Resurrection is supernatural. There are no natural means that could cause Jesus to rise from the dead. Furthermore, you have said in the other thread that there is no reason to believe Jesus lied about who he was, so his resurrection means, by necessity, that the Christian god exists.

Ummm, isn't that kind of the point? To show that the resurrection is the signature of God because if there was a natural means for Jesus to rise from the dead, would it be the unique signature of God?

[shunyadragon]

That was my point. You (and agnostics ) can't say 'The Christian doesn't 'know' , the Christian only 'believes' '.

Magellan

Not the point. Put some lead in your pencil and respond to my post correctly and directly. I referred to the issues from the standard universal academic perspective, and you have not responded to this.

The traditional theist may claim to 'know.' but providing a coherent, convincing argument to the non-believer why one claims to know is the problem.