James Cockey said
Jesus was a peasant carpenter from rural Nazareth.  He quoted the Hebrew scriptures and read from Isaiah in front of a synagogue, indicating he was literate, and furthermore, had access to sacred writings.

How common was literacy in the ancient world among peasants?

  

None of those events are historical, in my opinion (Jesus certainly would not be quoting the LXX… just saying, there is no reason to suspect he knew Greek at all). Quoting scripture itself is not difficult given ancient societies were highly oral communicative, so oral tradition was not uncommon. However, even if Jesus could read scripture, it is unlikely he could read anything else. Chris Keith notes that (1) literacy rates were exceptionally low (most studies place it between 2-10% at most could read or write to any extent); (2) that Jewish children who were taught to read were only taught to read the Tanakh and basically nothing else; (3) even those who could read could seldom ever write.

Literacy among peasants was exceptionally low for multiple reasons. (1) Few people could read or write, and therefore there were not many teachers. (2) Having books to teach reading and writing was expensive, so usually only wealthy people could do this. (3) Reading and writing was not a need of proletarian workers. It was a bourgeois activity. This largely applied outside of ancient Palestine as well. This is likely why there are no records of Jesus prior to Paul, because his followers were low peasants at first. Paul was one of the earliest aristocratic followers, and even Paul seems to have made use of secretaries.

vergari said

Chris_Hansen said

James Cockey said

Jesus was a peasant carpenter from rural Nazareth.  He quoted the Hebrew scriptures and read from Isaiah in front of a synagogue, indicating he was literate, and furthermore, had access to sacred writings.

How common was literacy in the ancient world among peasants?

  

None of those events are historical, in my opinion (Jesus certainly would not be quoting the LXX… just saying, there is no reason to suspect he knew Greek at all). Quoting scripture itself is not difficult given ancient societies were highly oral communicative, so oral tradition was not uncommon. However, even if Jesus could read scripture, it is unlikely he could read anything else. Chris Keith notes that (1) literacy rates were exceptionally low (most studies place it between 2-10% at most could read or write to any extent); (2) that Jewish children who were taught to read were only taught to read the Tanakh and basically nothing else; (3) even those who could read could seldom ever write.

Literacy among peasants was exceptionally low for multiple reasons. (1) Few people could read or write, and therefore there were not many teachers. (2) Having books to teach reading and writing was expensive, so usually only wealthy people could do this. (3) Reading and writing was not a need of proletarian workers. It was a bourgeois activity. This largely applied outside of ancient Palestine as well. This is likely why there are no records of Jesus prior to Paul, because his followers were low peasants at first. Paul was one of the earliest aristocratic followers, and even Paul seems to have made use of secretaries.

  

“there is no reason to suspect [Jesus] knew Greek at all”

Nazareth is 6 km from Sepphoris. There are reasons to suspect Jesus spoke some Greek.

  

Assuming Jesus had any business or reason to be in Sepphoris. Also, the people of Sepphoris likely would have spoken the more common Aramaic (which we know for a fact, since we have bilingual texts and inscriptions from Sepphoris; additionally we have found an Aramaic amulet, the Synagogue Sepphoris synagogue had inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic, and furthermore a recent survey of the Sepphoris cemeteries shows that only a single cemetery inscription was in Greek, as Mordechai Aviam and Aharoni Amitai demonstrated, and as such the general language seemed to be Aramaic) which was spoken by all the surrounding areas and regions. So, still not at all a significant or convincing reason to suppose Jesus spoke Greek. 

There is also not a shred of evidence Jesus was even there. Jesus has no connection to Sepphoris in any first century text we have, and so it is simply conjecture to assume he was ever even there. Hypotheticals are not convincing reasons. Possibilities are merely that. Possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus had any connection with Greek, thus, no convincing reason.

Thus:

1) Sepphoris had Aramaic speaking populations, with some who spoke Greek (proven by Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions)

2) Jesus is never attested as having been there in any first century text

3) Even if Jesus was there(if we assume it), point (1) indicates he wouldn’t need to learn Greek to interact with the populace

Therefore, even if he went to Sepphoris, it still fails to be even remotely convincing evidence of him knowing Greek, since the populace there had proven bilinguality, therefore, there would be no need for him to learn it. As such, my point stands. There is no reason to suspect Jesus knew Greek, even if he went to Sepphoris, because evidence suggests the populace knew Aramaic and therefore he had no need to learn it.

vergari said

Chris_Hansen said

vergari said

Chris_Hansen said

James Cockey said

Jesus was a peasant carpenter from rural Nazareth.  He quoted the Hebrew scriptures and read from Isaiah in front of a synagogue, indicating he was literate, and furthermore, had access to sacred writings.

How common was literacy in the ancient world among peasants?

  

None of those events are historical, in my opinion (Jesus certainly would not be quoting the LXX… just saying, there is no reason to suspect he knew Greek at all). Quoting scripture itself is not difficult given ancient societies were highly oral communicative, so oral tradition was not uncommon. However, even if Jesus could read scripture, it is unlikely he could read anything else. Chris Keith notes that (1) literacy rates were exceptionally low (most studies place it between 2-10% at most could read or write to any extent); (2) that Jewish children who were taught to read were only taught to read the Tanakh and basically nothing else; (3) even those who could read could seldom ever write.

Literacy among peasants was exceptionally low for multiple reasons. (1) Few people could read or write, and therefore there were not many teachers. (2) Having books to teach reading and writing was expensive, so usually only wealthy people could do this. (3) Reading and writing was not a need of proletarian workers. It was a bourgeois activity. This largely applied outside of ancient Palestine as well. This is likely why there are no records of Jesus prior to Paul, because his followers were low peasants at first. Paul was one of the earliest aristocratic followers, and even Paul seems to have made use of secretaries.

  

“there is no reason to suspect [Jesus] knew Greek at all”

Nazareth is 6 km from Sepphoris. There are reasons to suspect Jesus spoke some Greek.

  

Assuming Jesus had any business or reason to be in Sepphoris. Also, the people of Sepphoris likely would have spoken the more common Aramaic (which we know for a fact, since we have bilingual texts and inscriptions from Sepphoris; additionally we have found an Aramaic amulet, the Synagogue Sepphoris synagogue had inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic, and furthermore a recent survey of the Sepphoris cemeteries shows that only a single cemetery inscription was in Greek, as Mordechai Aviam and Aharoni Amitai demonstrated, and as such the general language seemed to be Aramaic) which was spoken by all the surrounding areas and regions. So, still not at all a significant or convincing reason to suppose Jesus spoke Greek. 

There is also not a shred of evidence Jesus was even there. Jesus has no connection to Sepphoris in any first century text we have, and so it is simply conjecture to assume he was ever even there. Hypotheticals are not convincing reasons. Possibilities are merely that. Possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus had any connection with Greek, thus, no convincing reason.

Thus:

1) Sepphoris had Aramaic speaking populations, with some who spoke Greek (proven by Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions)

2) Jesus is never attested as having been there in any first century text

3) Even if Jesus was there(if we assume it), point (1) indicates he wouldn’t need to learn Greek to interact with the populace

Therefore, even if he went to Sepphoris, it still fails to be even remotely convincing evidence of him knowing Greek, since the populace there had proven bilinguality, therefore, there would be no need for him to learn it. As such, my point stands. There is no reason to suspect Jesus knew Greek, even if he went to Sepphoris, because evidence suggests the populace knew Aramaic and therefore he had no need to learn it.

  

There is a very large difference in burden from arguing that we “don’t have convincing evidence” that Jesus knew Greek (true) and “there is no reason to suspect Jesus knew Greek.”  I’m not sure if the latter is hyperbole or a legitimate inability to comprehend burdens.

  

And a hypothetical does not give us “reason to suspect” anything, especially when your hypothetical can be undermined by a basic knowledge of the area. There is no reason to suspect that Jesus knew Greek, and Sepphoris does not add a single one (because there is no evidence Jesus went there, and the populace spoke Aramaic and therefore Jesus would not need to learn Greek). As far as the evidence is concerned, I have met the burden for such a statement, because there is no evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support this. You crying “Sepphoris” is not a reason to suspect anything about Jesus, because there is no link between Jesus and Sepphoris in canonical and early tradition. I’ve yet to ever hear a single reason to actually suspect Jesus knew Greek, that wasn’t just hypothetical nonsense like what you posted.

vergari said

Chris_Hansen said

vergari said

Chris_Hansen said

vergari said

Chris_Hansen said

James Cockey said

Jesus was a peasant carpenter from rural Nazareth.  He quoted the Hebrew scriptures and read from Isaiah in front of a synagogue, indicating he was literate, and furthermore, had access to sacred writings.

How common was literacy in the ancient world among peasants?

  

None of those events are historical, in my opinion (Jesus certainly would not be quoting the LXX… just saying, there is no reason to suspect he knew Greek at all). Quoting scripture itself is not difficult given ancient societies were highly oral communicative, so oral tradition was not uncommon. However, even if Jesus could read scripture, it is unlikely he could read anything else. Chris Keith notes that (1) literacy rates were exceptionally low (most studies place it between 2-10% at most could read or write to any extent); (2) that Jewish children who were taught to read were only taught to read the Tanakh and basically nothing else; (3) even those who could read could seldom ever write.

Literacy among peasants was exceptionally low for multiple reasons. (1) Few people could read or write, and therefore there were not many teachers. (2) Having books to teach reading and writing was expensive, so usually only wealthy people could do this. (3) Reading and writing was not a need of proletarian workers. It was a bourgeois activity. This largely applied outside of ancient Palestine as well. This is likely why there are no records of Jesus prior to Paul, because his followers were low peasants at first. Paul was one of the earliest aristocratic followers, and even Paul seems to have made use of secretaries.

  

“there is no reason to suspect [Jesus] knew Greek at all”

Nazareth is 6 km from Sepphoris. There are reasons to suspect Jesus spoke some Greek.

  

Assuming Jesus had any business or reason to be in Sepphoris. Also, the people of Sepphoris likely would have spoken the more common Aramaic (which we know for a fact, since we have bilingual texts and inscriptions from Sepphoris; additionally we have found an Aramaic amulet, the Synagogue Sepphoris synagogue had inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic, and furthermore a recent survey of the Sepphoris cemeteries shows that only a single cemetery inscription was in Greek, as Mordechai Aviam and Aharoni Amitai demonstrated, and as such the general language seemed to be Aramaic) which was spoken by all the surrounding areas and regions. So, still not at all a significant or convincing reason to suppose Jesus spoke Greek. 

There is also not a shred of evidence Jesus was even there. Jesus has no connection to Sepphoris in any first century text we have, and so it is simply conjecture to assume he was ever even there. Hypotheticals are not convincing reasons. Possibilities are merely that. Possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest Jesus had any connection with Greek, thus, no convincing reason.

Thus:

1) Sepphoris had Aramaic speaking populations, with some who spoke Greek (proven by Aramaic and bilingual inscriptions)

2) Jesus is never attested as having been there in any first century text

3) Even if Jesus was there(if we assume it), point (1) indicates he wouldn’t need to learn Greek to interact with the populace

Therefore, even if he went to Sepphoris, it still fails to be even remotely convincing evidence of him knowing Greek, since the populace there had proven bilinguality, therefore, there would be no need for him to learn it. As such, my point stands. There is no reason to suspect Jesus knew Greek, even if he went to Sepphoris, because evidence suggests the populace knew Aramaic and therefore he had no need to learn it.

  

There is a very large difference in burden from arguing that we “don’t have convincing evidence” that Jesus knew Greek (true) and “there is no reason to suspect Jesus knew Greek.”  I’m not sure if the latter is hyperbole or a legitimate inability to comprehend burdens.

  

And a hypothetical does not give us “reason to suspect” anything, especially when your hypothetical can be undermined by a basic knowledge of the area. There is no reason to suspect that Jesus knew Greek, and Sepphoris does not add a single one (because there is no evidence Jesus went there, and the populace spoke Aramaic and therefore Jesus would not need to learn Greek). As far as the evidence is concerned, I have met the burden for such a statement, because there is no evidence to the contrary, and plenty of evidence to support this. You crying “Sepphoris” is not a reason to suspect anything about Jesus, because there is no link between Jesus and Sepphoris in canonical and early tradition. I’ve yet to ever hear a single reason to actually suspect Jesus knew Greek, that wasn’t just hypothetical nonsense like what you posted.

  

It is not the hypothetical which gives rise to a “reason to suspect” — i.e., non-zero Bayesian probability; it is the evidence upon which the hypothetical is based.

Thus, by way of example, if the statement was made — “there is no reason to suspect that Chris Hansen has set foot inside Comerica Park” — could a burden be met on that statement of “reason to suspect” — i.e., non-zero Bayesian probability?

I personally have no way of knowing if you have or have not been to Comerica Park in your lifetime, since I know virtually nothing about you.

But, here is what I do know:

— you claim to be from Michigan, and I have no reason to doubt you are indeed from Michigan; and

— Comerica Park, on average, and for the last two decades, has the largest number of attendees for any sports facility in the State of Michigan.

Based on these two small pieces of data — and certainly in the absence of any direct evidence in support — there remains a “reason to suspect” that you have set foot inside of Comerica Park.  That conclusion is a deduction based on available evidence.

  

There is no evidence Jesus was near, at, or in the presence of Sepphoris at any point in his life. Hence, your Bayesian Probability is not looking so good. Of course, the caveats to your Comerica park example are: I’ve never been there, never claimed to go there, and each year it can only seat around 42 thousand people, and it does so cross-state. Thus, the likelihood of me being there, by prior probability, is so ridiculously low, that there is no reason to suspect I’ve been there ever. Let’s just look at my home state. It has a population of 9,987,000 people who could possibly have gone to Comerica Park. Comerica Park’s attendance high was 45,280. This means that the prior probability of me having gone there at any singular year of my life is 45,280 to 9,987,000 against. Which is about 0.4533%… i.e. it is so magnificently small that the random chances of me having gone there any year of my life are practically non-existent, even when we assume that every single year had the record high attendance level. 

And lets look at the available evidence:

(1) Jesus is never said to have gone to Sepphoris
(2) No source claims Jesus went to Sepphoris in the first century
(3) Even if he went to Sepphoris, he still did not need to know Greek or know how to read because the people there spoke Aramaic
(4) We have no data on how often people from Nazareth visited Sepphoris, thus no analogy to Comerica Park works (we have no average)

As such, we have no basis on which our hypothetical claim about Sepphoris is to function (neither 1 or 2), we have no basis on which to claim Jesus would have to learn Greek even if he went there (3), and we have no data with which to calculate a prior probability of him going there (4).

So please, calculate for me what our Bayesian prior probability is here for Jesus. Because, as far as I can see, the thesis that Jesus knew Greek, has absolutely no support except for unevidenced and completely unjustifiable hypotheticals, which have no prior data which can be used to calculate the prior likelihood of Jesus even going to Sepphoris, let alone him learning Greek there.

vergari said
I don’t understand the need to proceed from false factual premises. Why is it helpful to assert false data into this analysis?

Chris_Hansen said

There is no evidence Jesus was near, at, or in the presence of Sepphoris at any point in his life. Hence, your Bayesian Probability is not looking so good. Of course, the caveats to your Comerica park example are: I’ve never been there, never claimed to go there, and each year it can only seat around 42 thousand people, and it does so cross-state. Thus, the likelihood of me being there, by prior probability, is so ridiculously low, that there is no reason to suspect I’ve been there ever. Let’s just look at my home state. It has a population of 9,987,000 people who could possibly have gone to Comerica Park. Comerica Park’s attendance high was 45,280. This means that the prior probability of me having gone there at any singular year of my life is 45,280 to 9,987,000 against. Which is about 0.4533%… i.e. it is so magnificently small that the random chances of me having gone there any year of my life are practically non-existent, even when we assume that every single year had the record high attendance level. 

And lets look at the available evidence:

(1) Jesus is never said to have gone to Sepphoris

(2) No source claims Jesus went to Sepphoris in the first century

(3) Even if he went to Sepphoris, he still did not need to know Greek or know how to read because the people there spoke Aramaic

(4) We have no data on how often people from Nazareth visited Sepphoris, thus no analogy to Comerica Park works (we have no average)

As such, we have no basis on which our hypothetical claim about Sepphoris is to function (neither 1 or 2), we have no basis on which to claim Jesus would have to learn Greek even if he went there (3), and we have no data with which to calculate a prior probability of him going there (4).

So please, calculate for me what our Bayesian prior probability is here for Jesus. Because, as far as I can see, the thesis that Jesus knew Greek, has absolutely no support except for unevidenced and completely unjustifiable hypotheticals, which have no prior data which can be used to calculate the prior likelihood of Jesus even going to Sepphoris, let alone him learning Greek there.

  

Let’s take this piece by piece, with your assertions in red.

There is no evidence Jesus was near … or in the presence of Sepphoris at any point in his life.

This is simply a false factual statement.  Here are at least four major pieces of evidence which, when combined, make a fairly high likelihood that the historical Jesus visited Sepphoris.

No. 1: Multiple ancient sources — nearly universal — depict Jesus as being from Nazareth.  This is overwhelming textual evidence for this proposition. 

No. 2: There is also overwhelming textual evidence from antiquity that the historical Jesus was an itinerant teacher.

No. 3: The largest town within one day’s walking distance from Nazareth during the period Jesus of Nazareth was alive was Sepphoris.

No. 4: The walk, on foot, from Nazareth to Sepphoris is 6 kilometers — or, in other words, approximately a two-hour walk over non-paved terrain.

To deny these four pieces of historical evidence is to deny the discipline of history.

 

Of course, the caveats to your Comerica park example are: I’ve never been there, never claimed to go there, and each year it can only seat around 42 thousand people, and it does so cross-state. Thus, the likelihood of me being there, by prior probability, is so ridiculously low, that there is no reason to suspect I’ve been there ever. Let’s just look at my home state. It has a population of 9,987,000 people who could possibly have gone to Comerica Park. Comerica Park’s attendance high was 45,280. This means that the prior probability of me having gone there at any singular year of my life is 45,280 to 9,987,000 against. Which is about 0.4533%… i.e. it is so magnificently small that the random chances of me having gone there any year of my life are practically non-existent, even when we assume that every single year had the record high attendance level.

This is a little beside the point, but your analysis of the likelihood of you or any Michigander having been to Comerica Park is ridiculously and absurdly wrong.  For some reason, you are using the Park’s high attendance watermark as some sort of numerator in calculating the likelihood of having visited the stadium.  This calculation might make some sense if Comerica Park had only hosted ONE event in its entire history and that event sold out. I have absolutely no idea why you make such an assumption, but it does lineup nicely with the claim that “we have no reason to suspect” something from antiquity.

Quite obviously, a proper back of the envelope analysis of Comerica Park visits would encompass all of the events in the Park’s history — not a single event.  And, we know from the data that prior to the pandemic, Comerica Park averaged anywhere from 32 to 36 thousands fans per game for 81 home games per season for approximately 20 years.  If there was no overlap of fans — and of course there are — that would account for over 55 million visits to Comerica Park since it open — NOT THE PREPOSTEROUS NUMBER OF 45,280.  Obviously, there is sizable overlap in fans who have attended these games, but that overlap is nowhere near 100%.

 

And lets look at the available evidence:

(1) Jesus is never said to have gone to Sepphoris

(2) No source claims Jesus went to Sepphoris in the first century

Arguments from silence — such as these — are only valid if we were to expect the sources about the subject (Jesus) to have this information, was intending to give a complete account of circumstances where such information would be pertinent, and the information was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

Let’s just start with the first two pieces (whether ancient sources had this information and were intending to give an account about it): virtually all available, reliable information about the historical Jesus addresses his itinerant teachings for a maximum period of 3 years.  Indeed, outside of nativity stories, we have essentially nothing of Jesus’s life prior to his baptism by John and commencement of his ministry.  We have only the vaguest reference to what type of work he did prior to teaching; we have only the smallest information about his family; we have nothing about his social life prior to his period of teaching.  Thus, by these criteria alone — whether ancient sources had this information and were intending to give an account about it — an argument from silence fails as to Jesus’s entire like leading to his itinerant teaching.   But, even assuming arguendo that we’d expected ancient sources to have this type of information and it be encompassed within the purpose of their writings, there is no reason to think that Jesus, having been to Sepphoris during his ministry, did anything important enough for an ancient source to mention.  In other words, these arguments fail every test of the argument from silence fallacy.

(3) Even if he went to Sepphoris, he still did not need to know Greek or know how to read because the people there spoke Aramaic

This is true.  Jesus probably did not need to know Greek to function in Sepphoris.  But that is a far cry from claiming there is no reason to suspect  he might have known Greek if he spent any significant time in Sepphoris or in other cities where Helenistic Jews and Gentiles were the dominant population.  It’s very similar to someone attempting to navigate Los Angeles without knowing English.  Obviously, a native Spanish speaker can get along fine in Los Angeles without speaking English; however, if one wants to excel as a communicator of a message in Los Angeles — be it commercial sales or politics or otherwise — speaking English is very important in achieving success.

 

(4) We have no data on how often people from Nazareth visited Sepphoris, thus no analogy to Comerica Park works (we have no average)

So we’ve moved from the argument from silence fallacy to argument from ignorance fallacy.  Again, by claiming there is “no reason to suspect” something, the burden is placed on the person making that assertion (here, you).  It is a violation of the argument from ignorance fallacy to make an affirmative claim — here, that “there is no reason to suspect that Jesus knew Greek at all” or “there is no evidence Jesus was near Sepphoris” — by arguing your claim cannot be proved false: “we have no data on how often people from Nazareth visited Sepphoris.”

 

[A]s far as I can see, the thesis that Jesus knew Greek, has absolutely no support except for unevidenced and completely unjustifiable hypotheticals, which have no prior data which can be used to calculate the prior likelihood of Jesus even going to Sepphoris, let alone him learning Greek there.

I already set forth the evidence for the hypothesis that Jesus visited Sepphoris and possibly knew some Greek.  I never argued that the evidence was dispositive or even overwhelming; but the evidence does create a substantial non-zero probability.

Quite obviously, your affirmative claims that “we have no reason to suspect Jesus spoke Greek” and “there is no evidence Jesus was near Sepphoris” — resting on arguments from silence and ignorance — cannot be sustained.

  

1) Nazareth being six kilometers away from Sepphoris is not “close” or “near” unless we are being relative with this statement. For context, the town next to mine is only about a five hour walk in total. I have never once made that walk. Nor has any of my family, or the vast majority of my town. We barely even drive there. So, the distance is not even particularly pertinent, unless we can establish the frequency at which people went between the two places.

2) There is no evidence he was an itinerant preacher in Sepphoris

3) There is no evidence he went on the “one day walking distance” town of Sepphoris, so it doesn’t matter how large it was

4) Again, doesn’t really matter how close it is, and even if he did go there, there is no evidence he would even need Greek and we have no evidence for whether it is reasonable to assume he could learn Greek there either, since most of them all spoke Aramaic.

—————-

1) Comerica park also has visitors from 50 states in the United States of America, plus other countries. So… how about we factor in the populations of every single locale of visitors then, if you want to factor in every single year. The probabilities will always be absurdly low that I ever went there. So, how about we factor in the fact that it takes visitors from Canada, Europe, Asia, and more, plus all 50 states of visitors it takes in. As those 55 million definitely did not all come from Michigan or even the USA, for that matter, we have potentially upward of billions in population we could factor in and so the prior probability of me having been to Comerica park would still probably be below 1%. As you said, the overlap is nowhere near 100%. Therefore, the likelihood of me having been there is decreased significantly the more you factor in those newcomers.

—————-

“reliable information about the historical Jesus”

And what information would that be exactly? Because the Gospels definitely are not reliable. We do not even have credible methodologies for figuring out what is or is not authentic tradition in them (hence why every scholar under the moon comes to their own reinterpretation of Jesus and what was “authentic”, and to paraphrase Schweitzer, there is no task which better shows scholarly projection, assumption, and personal opinions than the assembly of a life of Jesus).

—————-

There is no evidence that Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles were the majority population of Sepphoris. As I noted above, the cemetery at Sepphoris had only a singular Greek inscription there, the vast vast vast majority were Aramaic. The idea that the majority population in Sepphoris was Hellenistic is a reach at best, and based purely on a sparse few mercantile artifacts (one of which has Greek and Aramaic, again providing evidence that the majority of the population likely were not Hellenistic and not Greek speakers).

—————-

I did not argue that my claim is true, because it cannot be proved false. I argued that your analogy to Comerica Park is a false analogy (which it is) because you have no data with which to even compare. It would be like saying we have data on Rabbits crossing the road Y, each year, and there are Z rabbits in the area. Therefore, the chances of any rabbit in the area X crossing the road is the percentage of rabbits crossing the road each year against the total population size in the area. This would be equivalent to the Comerica Park. Jesus going to Sepphoris would then be like saying that there is a rabbit, and no data on how many cross the road, and only rough estimates of population size. It is a false analogy and that is what I was pointing out. I never said I was right because of this, I said that your analogy was ludicrous, and we cannot even establish a proper prior probability of Jesus going to Sepphoris in the first place, again, giving us no ability to have reason to think he went there… because we cannot even give an estimate of the likelihood of him going there.

—————-

You did not set forth any evidence. Saying “Nazareth is six km” away, is not evidence Jesus made the walk. Saying that he “might” have gone somewhere, is not evidence. Saying a random fact about the distance of two towns, is not evidence someone went between the two towns. And you also provided no evidence he knew Greek, because even if he went to Sepphoris, most people spoke Aramaic, so why should we ever assume he learned Greek there?

You asserted possibilities and statements about… some people in Sepphoris knowing Greek and Sepphoris was a few kilometers away, and that Jesus was an itinerant preacher… who was never once said to go to Sepphoris. None of that is evidence Jesus went there. None of it. This is like apologetics level of absurdity if you think so.

You have not given any evidence. You have given facts which we cannot prove correlation between, and random hypotheticals. For example, what is the likelihood of an itinerant preacher of 1st century Palestine going to Sepphoris? You don’t know, no one does. So it can’t be stated to be evidence that Jesus *might* have gone to Sepphoris, because we cannot even say what the probability would be. Every single piece of “evidence” you claim is either purely hypothetical in nature, or has so many methodological caveats and complete inabilities to be evaluated for the probabilities that it is not evidence of anything. It is just a mere statement that is borderline meaningless. Jesus was an itinerant preacher (maybe, assuming we trust the Gospels at all on this)… which is meaningless in this context because we have no idea what the likelihood of itinerant preachers visiting Sepphoris was. Just as we have no idea the likelihood of people from Nazareth in general was of going to Sepphoris. You basically have claimed “evidence” for something, but none of that is evidence of anything because we cannot even assess how meaningful any of it even is in this context. Which makes it useless.

And with that, I’m done participating in a conversation with someone who falsely accuses me of fallacies (which you don’t even seem to understand), and then goes claiming they have evidence, while ignoring that none of it can actually even help assemble a probability of Jesus going to Sepphoris, because absolutely none of it has supporting probabilities either. A person who only has things assumed true about the Gospels, hypotheticals, and just random statements of fact that actually do not tell us the probabilities at all, and then accuses the other of being “fallacious” when they say that none of it gives us reason to suspect Jesus went to Sepphoris, is someone who is not worth the time it takes to spell their name.