Religious hatred law to feature in Queen’s speech
According to The Guardian, the government’s planned incitement to religious hatred law will be pushed through next session:
Peers have rejected this proposal twice in the last four years on grounds of “free speech”, but ministers have told Muslim groups that as it was a manifesto commitment they would now be justified in invoking the Parliament Act to override opposition.
Let’s hope that their vastly reduced majority will cause some problems here.
This one’s not so straight forward to me. Believe it or not, fundies like Reid, Green, Beyer et al are against this law as it will hinder them in asserting that Christianity is the only true religion, and that [perhaps more particularly] all others are false. Although I can see others religions abusing such a law, I think I’d prefer see the fundies p*ssed off some more.
What about inciting contempt and derision?
Waht about the viewpoint that all religions are evil and murderous lies, which blackmail their followers?
What about the appeasement of preachers (of any religion) or the ability to say “Liar” to any religious believer or preist?
We are going to lose this, or some brave souls are going to have to face a jail term, until this insanity is stopped.
Am I the only person who finds the scare quotes around the words “free speech” more than a little concerning?
Not employing someone or refusing to serve them simply because they are of a particular religion (or lack thereof) is quite obviously wrong.
But the criticism of ideas is an important part of a free society.
I’ll try and dig out a link to the excellent speech Rowan Atkinson made on this, unless someone else has it….
Atkinson’s speech is here
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/rowanatkinson.htm
We should remember that MP Khalid Mahmood believes that the proposed law could have been used to “edit” Salman Rushdie.
Though I dont understand the term ‘reliigon’, I do understand the term ‘worldview’. Only (a maximum of) one overall worldview can possibly be completely right. That means that either all current worldviews are at least partly false, or that all but one are.
To say this much is just common sense, and no-one can legislate against common sense.
Finding out which worldview is right is more tricky. The proper means to doing so is open debate. Not assertions, not cliches, not stereotypes. Just examination & weighing of evidence. Those who wish to replace weighing of evidence by unexamined dogma are the enemies of scholarship. Psychologically they belong to the ‘instruction’ stage rather than the more mature ‘debating’ stage.
If one is talking about different dimensions of life, then it is possible (in a limited way) to have separate correct worldviews for each dimension. Thus (for example) neo-Confucianism may give the truth about the human heart but not about the creation of the world, whereas the Steady State theory may give the truth about the creation of the world but not about the human heart. (Note: these are examples plucked out of the air: neither example is something I believe in or indeed know anything about.)
If something is the right theory, then how many wrong theories are there about the same topic? An infinite number. Wrong theories therefore massively outweigh right theories. Therefore the word is full of wrong theories. And we are not going to be allowed to point this out? That is why the ‘Religious Hatred’ proposal is wrong. Also for the reasons given by comedians. Also because ‘religion’ is not the clearest world (by contrast with ‘worldview’). And also, finally, because they seem to insist on making an emotional matter out of it (by use of the word ‘hatred’) when this is in essence a misunderstanding: someone might be talking on a factual, logical and evidential level, with no reference to emotions whatsoever.
Not ‘the WORD is full of wrong theories’ but ‘the WORLD is full of wrong theories’.
Not ‘not the clearest WORLD’ but ‘not the clearest WORD’.
That’s enough words (and worlds) from me.
I would agree with most of that, Doc. Although I may take issue with the possibility that there may actually be one correct way of looking at the world.
If there’s one world, there’s only one fully correct worldview. Since it consists (among other things) of an entire description of where each particle has ever been, it can be assumed that no-one is aware of it in toto – not even remotely.
However, the fact that the world functions at all (rather than collapsing) proves that it has underlying laws, so worldviews tend to work on elucidating what these laws are. Even when they have done so, they have not answered all the questions that there are, nor even all the important questions.
If ppl say there are two equally good worldviews, they are either wrong (since they can’t both correspond to reality) or speaking of things that are not comprehensive enough to merit the term ‘worldview’.
While I’m against the law per se, I think that if it is well written, then it could close a crucial loophole in the current racial discrimination legislation.
The BNP are currently using the word Muslim the same way that they used to use Black or Asian or Paki, and if we’re going down the road of outlawing types of speech, then this needs sorting.
If it is carefully worded so as to only be applicable to actual religious hatred rather than religious disdain or genuine debate, then it may not be as harmful as is feared.
Of course, it’s bound to be used to attack some stupid butcher in Bradford and it’ll be all over the papers.
So Christopher, as you say that this bill is wrong, can we take it that you think making fun of religion as in JS:TO is acceptable?
Or is it just OK to make fun of religions that aren’t yours?
It seems, doc, that when using the term worldview here, you’re kinda describing what scientists would refer to as a grand unified theory.
I have always taken the phrase world view to mean one’s outlook on life, so one can have a pessimistic worldview, for example.
Jerry Springer: The Opera, it didn’t make fun of religion but, as has been pointed out by many commentators now, showed the internal machinations of the Springer character’s mind after he’d been shot and was unconscious. We could interpret that as his going into purgatory or into an altered state of consciousness brought about by trauma. It hardly matters. The images of God, Jesus, the ‘Virgin’ Mary and the Devil are just so many archetypes.
“making fun of” was the wrong term, I meant “causing offence to”
Hi Tom-
Interesting. There’s a Chicago Centre for the Study of Worldviews (can’t remember its exact title) which treats the term as meaning grand philosophical theories. I tend to speak of having a ‘pessimistic/optimistic outlook on life’ or ‘attitude’.
Hi Andrew-
Ive argued for a moving of the goalposts where ‘religion’ is not the issue (whatever religion might be) but truth and accuracy are the issues. (After all, this is a princimpel which would be widely accepted for news coverage & documentaries, & quite right too.)
The man in the street already has enough uninformed half-baked opinionating about topics like Jesus. A show like JSTO is feeding his prejudices, and reinforcing him in his unthinking state. Since no possible good motive can be cited for displaying material of that kind, with that result, then one must assume a less than honourable motive. Therefore there can be no justification for showing it. (In short, I come to the same conclusion as Christian Voice by a completely different route.)
So I’m right then. Causing offence to other religions is fine, but causing offence to yours is wrong?
There is an alternate version of the Queen’s speech at Christian Voice. Selected highlights:
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us…
With the knowledge that criminals are soundly convicted, my Government will re-introduce the death penalty as the only way to make restoration in the case of murder, because God made man in His image.
Rational though has left the building. FFS, what are these people thinking?
Andrew-
No.
(1) I mentioned in #16 that I don’t even know what ‘religion’ means.
(2) Nor did I mention ‘offence’. Where did you get that from? I was not offended, just pointing out that factually there is no good reason for screening a programme that feeds ignorant prejudice. It’s a matter of facts and accuracy. Not a matter of emotion. Not ‘offence’ or any other emotion.
Being accurate is fine. Being inaccurate is not. ‘Religion’ doesnt come into it.
The thing I object to most strenuously is the misleading name of this bill. There doesn’t seem to be a word in it aimed at stopping the religious hating anyone!
Re: CV’s queen’s speech – what a bunch of fucking knobbers!
In one paragraph they talk about restoring capital punishment, yet in the very next paragraph outlawing abortion.
Human life’s either sacred or it ain’t.
Still at least it’s only one obsessive lunatic
I liked the fact that they justify taking us out of Europe because the only law that can apply to man is that of God. Which would surely make “My Government” pointless?
So Christopher, you are in all seriousness suggesting that any viewer will have watched Jerry Springer: The Opera and come away thinking there was some factual element of the portrayals in it? How can “ignorant predudice” be encouraged by a work of fiction, of which only one character was based on a real person in a clearly fictitious way (given that Jerry is still alive, obviously).
There was nothing “innacurate” postulated in JS:TO, because all of the elements that could be vaguely be described as factual were also clearly fictional, even to the dumbest of audiences.
Andy L – there were 2 characters based on real people. Don’t forget Steve, Jerry’s shaven-headed head bouncer.
Outlawing abortion? Dont raise hopes – they never said that did they?
Hi Andy-
No, that’s not my point. My point is that most viewers wouldnt know an accurate historical portrayal of Jesus/Mary if it hit them on the nose. And anyone who doesnt know what is accurate cant possibly know what is inaccurate either. The portrayals were comic-book / caricature, and therefore had the potential of reinforcing the stereotypes and prejudices who never had more than a comic-book / caricature idea of Jesus or Mary in the first place. 50 years ago when a lot more ppl had a basic knowledge of Christianity this would not have been such a problem. But now (as witness quiz-shows) it’s a topic that many ppl know next to nothing about.
More typos – read ‘reinforcing the stereotypes and prejudices of those who never had…’
I think it’s highly arguable wether there is ANY historically accurate portrayal of Mary and Jesus. Indeed it’s questionable wether they ever existed at all.
The Bible certainly can not be taken seriously as historically accurate.
Hi Andrew-
Cd you share your research with us?
Or else name just one scholar (out of the thousands who have studied this topic, including highly sceptical ones) who doubt ‘they ever existed at all’?
Note the word questionable.
The only evidence for the existence of the two are the 4 gospels. There is no evidence outside those. There is also no evidence that the gospels were written until approximately 150 years after the events that they claim to detail.
The gospels themselves are highly questionable due to the parts of them that are based in the realm of fantasy. Plus they often contradict each other, even over events in the life of Jesus, who is meant to be the central figure in them.
Maybe you have concrete evidence for their existence. I doubt it.
150 years? The huge consensus is that they were written between 35 and 70 years after the crucifixion. Where do you find the figure 150? If you name just one scholarly book that gives that figure, I will name you 100 (more, if you like) that give figures between 35 and 70.
The question remains: If you’ve got new discoveries, where is your research published?
Can anyone name a historical person for whom it could not be said that eyewitnesses were alive one generation after their death?
Typo. meant to say 50.
Never the less, everything else still stands. Even if we take the highly questionable position that the gospels are accurate, they certainly are not balanced. It really is simple. I don’t need to do any research to back up the fact that there is NO evidence outside of the gospels, and the gospels can not be taken as reliable as they are unbalanced and parts of them are purely in the realm of fantasy.
First-century authors who mention Jesus:
(1) Josephus – writing career 70s-90s AD
(2) Tacitus – alive in first centurym but writing here around 115 AD
(3) Suetonius maybe – if his ‘Chrestus’ is the same as ‘Christus’ – a bit earlier than Tacitus, from memory
(4) Thallus – around 52 AD – earliest nonChristian literary reference
(5) Pliny the Younger – alive in first century, but writing here approx. 110 AD
(6) Mara bar Serapion – around 70 AD
(7) Rabbinic references too – though these are hard to date, since they circulated orally before being committed to paper.
Of the available genres, which do you think fits the gospels better than the genre ‘biography’? (Compare biographical accounts of Socrates, Apollonius of Tyana; Plutarch’s ‘Lives’ etc, from a similar period of history.)
Of the avaialble genres, biography doesn’t even come close. Science Fiction would be the best genre to put the gopspels (and the entire Bible) in.
Just in case anyonw takes Shell’s barrel-scraping claims at face value:
1) Josephus – the passage in question is widely regarded as a forgery, added later by zealous Christian
2) Tacitus – confirms the existence of Christians, from whom he almost certainly got his information
3) There is little evidence Chrestus is a misspelling of Christ
4) There exist no writings by Thallus
5) Pliny only confirms the existence of Christians (not in doubt)
6) M b S does not mention Jesus
7) Vague and too late to be of much use
Having said that, the gospels are probably evidence enough for the existence of a charismatic rabbi named Jesus. But they can hardly be taken at face value.
Knowledge of the full accurate picture isn’t required to know something isn’t the full accurate picture as you’re saying. The depiction is quite clearly fantastical, and not based in any kind of reality, and no one, but no one, could have mistook them as anything but fantasy.
Your comic book reference is a good one – despite it’s huge exposure, no one thinks that there’s actually a planet Krypton, where Superman came from, in real life.
Hi again-
My list is of passages which mention Jesus, not passages which claim he existed. The fact that they mention him, and the way in which they mention him, indicate that his existence was not up for debate.
What is the earliest-dating passage that disputes his actual existence? I can’t think of a single one, which would be odd considering all these Christians were walking around treating him as a figure of history. Thus far it’s seven-nil (or five-nil or whatever) in favour of pagan and Jewish sources, emanating from first-century people, which agree that he existed.
(1) This passage is hotly debated. I am not aware that the ‘total forgery’ theory has ever been held by more than a minority of NT scholars. All manuscripts contain the passage.
Are you arguing that the spawner of a movement prominent enough to be blamed 25 years earlier for the fire of Rome was not of sufficient importance to be likely to be mentioned in a comprehensive history of Judaism which treated the first century in great detail? The more obvious standpoint is that such a figure would be more likely than not (to put it no stronger than that) to be included in such a large historical writing.
Two books later, in Antiquities 20, Josephus refers to ‘James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ’. This turn of phrase presupposes the earlier passage. Unless this passage too is to be taken as a forgery – again with no manuscript evidence – which makes the forgery theory become a bit complicated. It’s not likely that Josephus would say a great deal about the Pharisee, Sadducee sects etc but nothing at all about the Christian ‘sect’ (whose first two leaders were Jesus and James). He would be likely to say a little bit about it.
This latter passage has no authenticity problems when one compares the various manuscripts and translations. Even the earlier passage has none when it comes to early manuscripts. It is only with regard to later translations that vcariants arise – as indeed they do in other parts of Josephus and of most other works by other authors.
(2) You omit to mention that Tacitus refers (from memory) to ‘Christ’ as well – as an historical figure crucified under Pilate. How would one compute the chances of us in the twenty-first century being better qualified to adjudicate on this matter than someone alive in the first century?
(3) I agree that the ‘Chrestus’ theory is somewhat overrated. It’s still a strong player for the following reasons: (a) The fact that Suetonius doesnt explain who ‘Chrestus’ quite probably indicates that he is garbling. He doesnt even say ‘a certain Chrestus’, which suggests he is reproducing material from a source (oral or written) without full comprehension. (2) ‘Chrestus’ for ‘Christus’ would be a natural mistake for someone unfamiliar with the person in question, since there is a very common Greek word ‘chrestus’ meaning (as I remember) ‘good’, and ‘Chrestus’ was a common slave name; what a contrast with ‘Christus’ which was no-one’s name, merely a title not shared with anyone else apart from messianic claimants with whom Suetonius in his culture would not be too familiar. (c) The two names were pronounced similarly. (A more minor point: Suetonius is writing in a very dense style here (‘impulsore Chresto’), which is a possible indication that he is disguising ignorance by fashionable economy of style: making a virtue out of a defect.)
(4) Authors are quoted by other authors. It makes no difference to the credibility of a source whether it is quoted or in the original. Where is the evidence that authors made up quotations? Especially since the point Thallus is making is neither proChristian nor antiChristian but merely astronomical. The works that authors quote from are real works: there is no quotation practice contrary to this.
(5) Pliny also mentions ‘Christ’: ‘hymns to Christ as to a god’. Implication: they are treating an historical person as though he were a god (silly people!). Implication: he was an historical person.
(6) Whom else would MbS be likely to be referring to?
(7) Agreed, though their oral origin is hard to date.
“Where is the evidence that authors made up quotations?”
I find it’s usually Christian authors that make up/”bend” quotations. Usually when talking about anything that they consider to be incompatible with their religion, eg. evolution
My list is of passages which mention Jesus, not passages which claim he existed. The fact that they mention him, and the way in which they mention him, indicate that his existence was not up for debate.
I could find plenty of passages that mention Santa Claus. The way in which he is mentioned also makes it looks like he existed. Doesn’t mean he does.
Also in that paragraph you say that these passages don’t claim that Jesus existed, yet in the next, you say they agree that he existed. Which is it?
Implication: they are treating an historical person as though he were a god (silly people!). Implication: he was an historical person.
I don’t get the logic here…. you’re using the assumption that Jesus is a historical figure to show that he is a historical figure.
Thanks for elaborating on your rather stark list which, as I said, should not be taken at face value (though I don’t know where you got the idea that Tacitus was writing “from memory”). As you have kindly demonstrated, the closer we examine this evidence, the flimsier it appears to be.
Er – that one-line generalisation does not accurately summarise the gist of my 30-35 lines :o(
Re: Tacitus: it’s me writing from memory about the contents of Tacitus, not Tacitus himself writing from memory.
Hi Andrew-
What is your view on the topic of whether Julius Caesar ever existed? Or any other historical figure from 2000 years ago? 35-70 years after the celebrity’s death is a decent gap by normal standards.
As for manuscripts, there are many thousands more manuscripts of the NT than of any other ancient writing (the number runs into 5 figures – from memory, somewhere between 10000 and 25000). Next highest is Homer’s Iliad with (I think) 600-800.
Your estimate is that less-attested historical figures are more likely to have existed than the one who is (by this particular criterion) the best-attested one of all. More than that: the very one whose existence you are claiming to doubt is the very one who (by this criterion) is the best attested. Odd – unless parti pris is at work?
Parti pris is most certainly at work. Anyone who suggests that the relative historicity of ancient figures is determined solely by the number manuscripts which refer to them has without a doubt taken sides.
Anyone who suggests that the relative historicity of ancient figures is determined solely by the number manuscripts which refer to them has without a doubt taken sides.
Agreed. Evidence is more about quality rather than quantity. I’d much rather take a single piece of irefutable evidence rather than 100s or 1000s of vauge references.
Julius Ceasar definitely existed. He played county cricket for Surrey and Lancashire in the 19th century…..
I take it however you’re referring to the historical figure of Julius Ceasar. I’ve seen this question put forward by several Christians in debates similar to this. COuld it be that you don’t actually think up your own comments?
But anyway, I quote from another website: “Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like and we have a complete history of his life. In turn, general, orator, historian, statesman and lawgiver. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by both his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death, as do his successors. Caesar established a style of government – and a calendar – which endured for centuries.”
Hi Andrew-
You’re right about Julius Caesar. They had strange names in those days – there was a ‘Gentleman’ playing called Mr S.A.P. Kitcat – and Ive an idea there was one called Christ as well, though maybe Ive seen that in another connection.
Youre right in what you say about the BC Julius Caesar. But remember that whereas he established a calendar, the dates in our calendar are according to years after the other JC. It’s not that there is evidence for only one of the two: the essential point is that there is a great deal of evidence for both of them. The nub of it is that it would be eccentric to doubt the existence of Julius Caesar, and also eccentric to doubt the existence of Jesus.
There was (at least) one person who doubted it, G. Wells, but he was a professor of German – presumably wheeled out because no specialist could be found to support such a position. And there are enough thousands of specialists to choose from. I wouldnt presume to go against all the professionals on any topic on which I am an amateur. (Dont cite Darwinism: I have always secretly hoped that some form of Darwinism may be true -though there appears fo be little hope for classical Darwinism – since it is so economical: here I just plead that ppl be honest about where evidence does and doesn not exist, be scientific rather than dogmatic.) But one finds ppl doing that on the topic of the existence of Jesus. The reason surely must be that ppl very much want him not to have existed.
Any website that calls Jesus a ‘mythical’ figure (at least, in the sense of doubting his very existence) was clearly written by an amateur. Do you know who wrote this? (Whoever they were, they get 3 out of 10 from me!!) There are any number of professional scholars one could have quoted from instead. On what grounds would some website like that be regarded as better evidence than the writings of professional scholars?
Vague references: I agree that the first-century Jewish / pagan sources dont amount to an enormous lot. They do amount to roughly what one might have expected for so early a date. But you were originally saying that there were no such references at all – surely your time would be better spent reading up about it a bit, as 2 days ago you were unaware that such references even existed. This means that it’ll take a while before youre at the stage where you can debate it – but stick at it!! God knows Im an amateur in enough things myself.
The other point is that the gospels (and indeed the New Testament letters) are anything but vague references, and anything but late in date. So the overall situation is not accurately described by speaking of ‘vague references’. Of course, you could say, ‘The gospels dont count.’ But thereby you reflect your bias, and the essential for proper debate is even-handedness and lack of bias. By what criterion do nonChristian writings weigh more than Christian ones (or vice-versa)? One could say ‘the Christian ones are biased’; but they may be no more biased pro-Christ than the other ones are biased against him. Some of them (Christian and nonChristian) may not be particularly biased at all, simply endeavouring to be even-handed. Bias exists, in fact, in all writings (some more than others), and it is not always a bad thing. One may, for example, be biased towards truth as opposed to biased towards sensationalism.
Im not sure youve taken the point that the score re nonChristian writings’ view about whether Jesus existed so far stands at 5-0 to ‘Yes he did exist’. Add on the Christian writings and the score is of course a lot higher to nil. Why didnt anyone point out that ‘he never existed’? Even if one p[erson had, they would still be massively outvoted. So why side with no ancient writers at all? What is the extra evidence we have found that they were unaware of?
Hi Monitor-
If you scroll back you’ll see that I was saying that Jesus comes way out in front ‘by this particular criterion’. By implication I am excluding other criteria in this particular sentence.
This remains one of the more important criteria, and (as I implied) there are certainly others, on none of which Jesus comes out badly with regard to the fact of his existence. Remember that even if no miracle had happened since the world began, what is currently being debated is the mere basic fact (or otherwise) of Jesus’s actual existence: something which has never been controversial.
You may have noticed that I refer to the quality of the evidence. Yes there is evidence for the existence of some bloke called Jesus, but the vast majority of it is patchy at best. I’ve also never seen any account of his life prior to the year or so before his death.
There is certainly not enough evidence to claim that there is no debate over his existence. If there was, there wouldn’t be any debate on the issue, but there clearly is!
For Ceasar on the other hand there is strong evidence throughout his life. The amount of evidence is not important, it is the quality of the evidence.
I don’t count the gospels as evidence as much of them is clearly in the realm of fantasy, including much of their description of Jesus. Indeed the character of Jesus as described in the Gospels can only possibly be described as mythical. I hate to break it to you, but it isn’t actually possible to turn water into wine, come back from the dead, etc.
That the Gospels depict these as actual events, ignoring the more plausible explanation (some sort of elaborate Johnathan Creek style magic trick for example) shows that they can not possibly be taken as a serious historical account.
And sorry for going off topic, but there was a J. Christ who played cricket, for the Australian women’s team. There’s also several Mohammad Ali’s, and even a William Shakespeare, who rather sadly never played against Julius Ceasar.
LOL, they all sound fitting candidates for the World team in the annual fixture against Mars. (Or alternatively for some Monty Python clash of the titans.)
I am well aware of exactly what you said, including your parenthetical get-out should anyone cotton on to what you were up to. You focus on one particular criterion for historicity (the number of copies of the manuscripts in question), when there are many. That criterion happens to be the only one in which Jesus “wins” over Caesar. Your reasons for doing this are obvious – to promote one side of the argument over the other. Then, in the same breath, you accuse Andrew of being parti pris!
At least no one can accuse you of hiding your hypocrisy under a bushel.
OK let’s think of some other criteria.
Remember that the entire Jesus v Caesar ‘contest’ is flawed, since the two ppl chosen are two who have very strong claims to historicity. One may have stronger claims than the other, and by some criteria this may be Jesus, by others Caesar. But that is irrelevant when the topic of discussion is whether they existed at all. They are the two examples who should not have been chosen, since there is not much debate to be had over whether they existed at all. The reason I chose Caesar was to provide a comparison for the degree of certainty we have re Jesus’s existence. It is roughly (only roughly, since who can compute such things?) on the same level as our degree of certainty re Caesar’s.
Some alternative criteria:
(1) Being the person the dating system is dated according to wins over all challengers – even being the founder of a calendar. Cant get a better claim to historicity than that.
(2) Earliness of manuscript evidence – Jesus wins hands down, but Caesar also scores well.
(3) Earliness of inscriptional evidence – Caesar wins hands down.
(4) Effect – both colossal. One causes an international cultural change by being the founder of the imperial faith, the other by being the founder of the empire (albeit plans to make him emperor were abortive). Legacy – Caesar founded a form of government, Christ an equally all-pervasive ritual.
(5) Lasting effect – Jesus wins (though Kaisers, Czars, Tzars etc have still existed in the modern world), but this is not an especially relevant criterion for historicity.
(6) Number of biographies – both do very well. From memory, several life-accounts were lost in each case, but more so in the case of Caesar (if we’re speaking of early accounts).
(7) Personal physical description – Caesar wins hands-down.
(8) Biographical details for a complete life-account – Caesar wins hands-down.
(9) Culture-relative impressiveness of evidence – both do very well. Caesar is fortunate enough to be living in a culture full of literature and biographies. People who live in such cultures do not ‘exist’ to any greater degree than those who dont. Jesus ranks right up there for his own culture, which was much less rich in this way.
(10) Independence of accounts – both do ok, but Caesar considerably better.
(11) Personal Writings – an unfair comparison, since Jesus was living in a culture less renowned for this; the only main accounts we have are in Greek, in which he may not have been able to write (as opposed to speak). Caesar wins.
All this tends to confirm the position already enunciated. Both score high for their time. Both score high for their own culture. Overall (even given the considerable advantage of being Roman) no-one could protest if Caesar were ranked higher. But the debate is not about which ranks higher, but how high both rank. Both rank well above the line where there is serious dispute about existence. There is, in fact, no serious dispute about the actual existence of characters in Cicero for whom there is only a thousandth of the evidence that there is for Caesar; or characters in Josephus for whom there is only a thousandth of the overall evidence there is for Jesus. Dispute is about the details of their lives, not about whether they existed or not.
(1) Being the person the dating system is dated according to wins over all challengers – even being the founder of a calendar. Cant get a better claim to historicity than that.
The numbering system was started in the year 527CE, by a Roman abbott who basically guessed the alleged date of birth of Jesus. Caesar on the other hand started the calendar which is the foundation of our current one in circa 40BCE. Ceasar wins hands down on that criteria I’m afraid.
(2) Earliness of manuscript evidence – Jesus wins hands down, but Caesar also scores well.
Surely it’s the quality of that manuscript evidence we should be looking at? Caesar wins hands down on that.
The evidence for Julius Caesar is such that there can be no debate over his existence.
The evidence for Jesus on the other hand is so patchy that his existence can certainly not be confirmed. The very fact that there is a debate indicates this.
Point (1) is a bit thin – the Romans calculated their calendar from the foundation of Rome by Romulus, but that doesn’t mean *he* existed, or even that this was when Rome was founded.
There isnt a debate about the existence of Jesus in the scholarly world. There are plenty among the general public.
I didnt get the point about the quality of manuscript evidence being better in Caesar’s case. Could you enlarge on this?
Ezekiel – good point!