Is God THE Necessary Being? Part III

Is God THE Necessary Being?
Part I · Part II · Part III

We can compare ...

We can compare the whole endeavour to the easier exercise of proving what is indeed in some sense true, that there is a unique thing, immutable, timeless, simple, immune to evil and necessarily existing, between zero and two.

TLS : Enlightened thinking?
SIMON BLACKBURN | September 5, 2018
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/enlightened-thinking-atheism-god/

This is probably what Feser meant here:

Blackburn’s playful comparison of a divine first cause to a number ignores the rather crucial difference that numbers are (notoriously) causally inert. This is a little like saying that a living man is like a dead man, except for being living.

This misses a point about FIRST mover, FIRST cause, FIRST necessary being.

It seems, Blackburn has even (at least verbally) admitted their existence.* He has just refused to identify them with the Christian God:

Light a candle and kneel in silent contemplation by all means – it is after all good, in the sense that there is nothing deficient about it (you cannot imagine a better number one). But then adding that this number is something you might one day see face to face, or something that sends messengers to earth occasionally, or has a chosen people, or something that prefers humanity to the ebola virus, or that underwrites the kinds of edicts that Feser’s Church typically makes, commanding that we ban assisted suicide and birth control, and avoid gay sex, strongly suggests exactly the confusions besetting Hobbes’s rustic.

Now, perhaps it is not only in causation, but also in explanation or proof or definition that Feser misses a point about "first".

Certainly there is no coherent way to draw it, as many atheists attempt to do, at the fundamental laws of nature. Higher-level laws are explained by lower-level laws in something like the way the book on the top of a stack is held up by the ones below it. Take away the floor, and there is nothing that gives the bottom book any power to hold up the top book. Similarly, make the fundamental laws into unintelligible brute facts, and they have no intelligibility to pass upward to higher-level laws – which in turn will have no intelligibility to pass along to the phenomena they are supposed to be explaining. The world’s being just a little bit unintelligible is like its being just a little bit pregnant. Or it is like having a cancer that metastasizes unto the remotest extremity.

False. All explanation involves some level of precisely brute fact, intelligible as to what, but not as to why, which confers an added intelligibility on what is explained, so that it is intelligible both as to what and also as to at least one why.

If you pretend that even the first fundamental law needs to in its turn be explained by an even more fundamental one - you have given up the Thomistic sense of "first".

Indeed, many Neo-Thomists have come to do so. I claim, as a Geocentric, God is moving the aether, which is moving the Sun, the Moon and the Planets and Stars Westward at an angular speed of 360 ° every stellar day, every 23^h 56^m 4.098 903 691^s and that an Angel is moving Eastward any heavenly body that takes longer than that time, notably the Sun which takes a full 24^h for 360° AND that this is what the Prima Via, First Mover, is most basically about. Answers a Neo-Thomist "no, God moves through secondary causes".

Well, the aether moving westward at 360° every 23^h 56^m 4.098 903 691^s IS a secondary cause and one directly moved by the First cause. But the Neo-Thomist would require that secondary cause to also be moved by a secondary cause, not directly by God, and then, from physics giving famously the rules for secondary causes, he would scrap Geocentrism, as there is probably no secondary cause able to move the aether of all the universe around earth 360° westward every 23^h 56^m 4.098 903 691^s. When Sungenis suggests that inertia and conservation of momentum would apply as such a secondary cause, he is in fact scrapping the Thomistic sense of First mover (in contemporary causation) and reducing God to a Newtonian style earliest mover (in temporal succession of causes).

The problem with this is, if EVERY secondary cause according to the dictum "God moves through secondary causes" needed to be caused by another precisely secondary cause, then that would constitute a glaring denial of St Thomas' need for secondary causes to depend on a first cause.

Now, Carrier has a better grasp on this, at least in the domain of explanation:

Carrier

But it’s possible for things to exist that no language can describe, so merely being meaningless is not a sufficient conclusion.

[on why contradictum in adiecto cannot exist]

Simon

Has the idea [entities can exist that are linguistically indescribable] been logically demonstrated?

Carrier

Describe the color green.

(Not what things are green. Or what causes us to experience the color green. But what being green consists of. Describe the thing itself, without referencing any green thing or any causes of it.)

In other words, in the domain of explanation, Carrier knows that there is a FIRST, sth which can explain or enter into explanations, but which itself cannot be explained or defined.

While green can in given instances be causally explained, it cannot be explained further in the direction of definition, at least according to Carrier.

A painter might counter "it's a colour, it's a cold colour and it's a passive colour".

Warm : Red and Yellow, Cold : Green and Blue.
Active : Red and Blue, Passive : Yellow and Green.

And here you must admit, there is a level on which we see that this is fitting as a description of these colours, but we cannot explain this to a colour blind person. And we cannot either even by this description make someone imagine correctly "green", it only works as identifying its relation to other colours.

So, yes, in description there is a first. There is a fact which is brute fact with which other things are described.

Therefore, there is also (contra Feser) a fact which is brute fact, with which other things are explained causally.

Now, the thing is, with only the first three ways and with no Geocentrism allowed "any more" in the first way, we cannot prove that the "ultimate first" is personal. First mover? Could be energy. First necessary existent? Could be matter. First cause? Could be the couple matter/energy.

Other version, since according to Einstein matter is a form of energy, energy in the physical sense could be all that were needed. Especially if we skip all the questiones after Q 2 A 3.

Now, look at Fourth and Fifth ways.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Persons are nobler than stones and more existent than stones, therefore the noblest thing in this gradation also needs to be personal.

The extra criterium of that ultra thing which confers the quality on things having it in lesser degree could even be brushed off as Platonic pseudo-science.

Except for ... presuppositional, see previous part.

And governance, fifth way. With no centre of the Universe and no extraordinary complexity of movements around it (like in denying Geocentrism), and with all local centres being so by simple gravity and with Eco-Systems actually being by-products of Evolution, no Fifth way either. Not for a personal God.

Therefore, the need for Geocentrism and Creationism. These are however available.

Now, the fact is, Heliocentrism is built on a kind of radical scepticism which St Thomas Aquinas was NOT counting.

I'll have to deal with it, so I reformulate.

You can accept Empirical evidence as it is, and you can from there conclude God exists.

Or, you can accept Atheism as a postulate for explanations, and you can from there build an anti-Empiric science, like Heliocentrism.

So, if we accept Empirical evidence, Sun and Moon and Venus and Jupiter are each day turning around Earth and if we abstract from that, Venus and Jupiter are doing such marvellous dances that they need a choreographer, apart from the question how a biggy like Sol would dance around our small Earth without one ... and that argues the choreographer is also first mover - His moving things is the prime law of any movement - and the necessary being - how could He be First mover all over the cosmos without also being that?

Either, the necessary being is God, or, empiry is wildly misleading. Which, in a way parallel to presuppositional apologetics, argues that you can know nothing much if there is no God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut in priori et secunda parte

* Probably the wording "between zero and two" means he is accepting the "number line" ideology of arithmetic. That would mean, "one" is to him not the first principle of number. This would then constitute a disagreement with St Thomas even on the Five Ways.

Is God THE Necessary Being? Part II

Is God THE Necessary Being?
Part I · Part II · Part III

If I have been lazy, my excuse is Carrier has been even lazier in relation to me. I was just reminded of my negligence a few moments ago (or ok, a quarter of on hour or half hour or whatever).

Since Feser just replied to another Humean, Blackford, on the Five Proofs, I'll link to Feser's reply:

Edward Feser : Reply to Blackburn on Five Proofs
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/09/reply-to-blackburn-on-five-proofs.html

I actually intended to take my Presuppositional observation in part III and something else (upcoming in part III now) in part II.

However, one quote from Feser will quickly bring me to C. S. Lewis' Miracles, and its version of Presuppositional Apologetics.

The broadly Humean epistemology he deploys against the Scholastic theism I defend in Five Proofs of the Existence of God requires a careful balancing act. On the one hand, Blackburn must limit the powers of human reason sufficiently to prevent them from being able to penetrate, in any substantive way, into the ultimate “springs and principles” of nature. For that is the only way to block ascent to a divine first cause – the existence and nature of which, the Scholastic says, follows precisely from an analysis of what it would be to be an ultimate explanation.

Now, this reminds me of precisely a weakness in 8 Propositions. By the way, they seem to be now extended to 9 and 10, unless I simply missed the last ones previously.

These are propositions about a non-universe, a nothing in the sense of an absence of anything except what is necessary.

Now, in a comment under that article Carrier stated:

Logical contradictions reference nothing, and thus have no actual meaning in any language (each part of a contradiction has meaning; but their conjunction is meaningless). But it’s possible for things to exist that no language can describe, so merely being meaningless is not a sufficient conclusion. It’s enough for most things, since usually all we need know is what a sentence references, and when the answer is “nothing,” we can move on. But there is a deeper question as to why contradictory states of affairs can’t materialize. It’s not enough to say language couldn’t describe it. As arguing from that would be a non sequitur.

This is a question in the ontology of logic: what exactly is it, that makes logical laws describe all actual things too, not just languages. Why, in other words, does the universe obey the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). It’s easy to show why language always must. But that by itself doesn’t explain why not just language, but even universes, must obey.

I do answer this in SAG but I get more specific and detailed in my response to Reppert (also linked in the article above), under the heading Ontology of Logic. The short of it is this: the only state of being that would be correctly described as not obeying the LNC, is a state of being that contained no distinctions; but distinctions are always possible; even the attempt to assert they are impossible asserts they exist and thus are possible. For there to be something that existed that prevented distinctions from existing, entails distinctions exist: a distinction between the presence and the absence of that something; and if there is nothing preventing distinctions from existing, distinctions always exist: e.g. a distinction exists between distinctions being possible and distinctions being impossible.

Is this a logical or a physical fact?

The LNC is thus just a restatement of a physical fact: distinctions exist. Which is always true, because the moment any state of being obtains, it comes with distinctions.

OK, with things existing, there are distinctions. So, it is a physical fact.

I'll go down this alley, Carrier.

If it is a physical fact, it does not apply to your propositions about "nothing". Also, if it is about "distinctions", it cannot apply to a nothing which lacks distinctions.

So, the only way in which you can reason at all about the logical consequences of nothing and count on your "language logic" to apply to "the logic of things" is, if you have an access to a logic which rules the logic of all and any things under any circumstances whatsoever - but in order for this to be so, this logic needs to be a mind, ruling physical things and distinctions like your mind rules your body. Or sth like that.

If your mind only had access to the logic that physically shaped you, you would be able to reason about your surroundings, not about this kind of ultimate problem.

This is even more clear, if the words about LNC and distinctions are supposed to be a logical fact, while this would allow it to apply to "nothing" (except what is logically necessary) it is only possible if there is a logic above physics.

That is why Sherlock Holmes refuses to philosophise. He is basically an atheist, but a weak atheist : he knows that if [evolutionary] atheism is true, then its truth is a matter beyond what his mind was evolved to know.

If your position is the truth, it is a truth which can never be known. The fact that you treat it as sth which can be known shows you are wrong.

So, for logic to apply without exceptions, even to "nothing", it is necessary that God is. This makes God a known, not just candidate, but actual claimant to the title "nothing except what is logically necessary". So much for your "as far as we know".

I'll be saying a thing or two on Feser next time, in part III.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Matthew Apostle
21.IX.2018

Is God THE Necessary Being - part 1

Is God THE Necessary Being?
Part I · Part II · Part III

Between Thomists and Carrier, no one is pretending that God is "a" necessary being, among several.

The claim of St Thomas Aquinas is fairly clear : God is THE necessary being, all being outside God being contingent.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.

Dr. Who and any rabbit howsoever magical would fit in this category, Mr. Carrier (referring to our debate).

But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not.

Note, it would seem that he is only saying it is impossible for each to always exist, and obviously we are here dealing with "given infinite time" - since with time having a beginning, God starting it is easy to prove.

Actually, for each, given less than actually infinite time (if any needed infinite time back to have a beginning or infinite time forward to have an end, it would NOT have a beginning or an end and therefore be a necessary being).

Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.

At first glance, he would seem to be overreaching. When a body falls apart by corruption and dissolution in water, its constituent parts become parts of other bodies, right, Demokritos?

Well, the solution that there are always particles and that no visible body begins or ceases except by taking particles from or giving particles to other bodies ... is not a refutation, but is a pretense that "atoms" as Demokritos would have it (we use the name somewhat differently) are the necessary being. Along with space coordinates for the non-being surrounding each on each side, of course.

What St Thomas is envisaging is of course nothing to do with atoms so far, since he is speaking from empirical evidence, and atoms would be one theoretical solution. He is so far not concerned with what theoretical solution, he is concerned with establishing the concept of necessary being.

Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.

Famously, Mr. Carrier has actually tried to refute by the 8 propositions.

Here is his proposition number 2:

Proposition 2: The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that which is logically necessary.

My emphasis. Now, the problem is, "excapt that which is logically necessary" sounds suspiciously like the term St Thomas is establishing : the necessary being.

Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd.

Will Mr. Carrier say "we only have Thomas Aquinas' word for it being absurd"?

I think he has dealt so with fairly self evident things in relation to Feser ...

No, seriously, I think that Mr. Carrier will admit that things actually exist.

Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.

Will Demokritan atoms do?

But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not.

What if Demokritan atoms have their necessity caused by some other being?

If they were the really necessary being, how is spacetime derived from them?

If they are a necessary being, along with spacetime, how is the relation arranged?

If they are arranged in spacetime, because spacetime is more necessary than they, how can spacetime actually cause particles?

Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes.

Recapitulation of this point in prima and secunda via:

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Everyone except Mr. Carrier and his fellow materialists, I presume ... these preferring forces acting on particles in spacetime ...

Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Except Mr. Carrier, I presume, who think it is sth like matter or energy, I presume. With his fellow materialists, of course.

Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

And since Mr. Carrier's fellow materialists, the ancient Epicureans, were out of fashion several centuries before St Thomas, he is using the phrase "all men" ... meaning all men except the materialists he was not thinking of, since they did not socially exist.

Now, could Carrier be right that the necessary being is particles acted on by forces, these residing in the particles and all residing in spacetime?

I have already given a hint on why this is actually not very likely: if the Demokritan atoms were the really necessary being, how is spacetime derived from them?

If they are a necessary being, along with spacetime, how is the relation arranged?

If they are arranged in spacetime, because spacetime is more necessary than they, how can spacetime actually cause particles?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XVIth Lord's Day after Pentecost
9.IX.2018

A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

As you may have perhaps gathered from previous two posts on this blog, I think the 8 propositions do not conclude, as Carrier thinks, in "nothing would give rise to anything, including everything we know, even without God", but in "nothing would give rise to anything, including everything we know, even without God unless God is the necessary being".

He thinks that even though he has all along admitted that whatever it is necessary to exist must exist, both because it must and for this to result, this still excludes God ... from being that necessary being.

Now, I was a bit sloppy in responding a few days ago, and missed a nuance or two in one of his responses.

Here it is:

Wow. I can't believe you are this dense. "Gravity explains the motion of the planets." "Maybe it doesn't, because angels do it. It's possible! Therefore you cannot conclude gravity causes it." "We have logically demonstrated that 1+1=2." "Maybe some hypothetical future logical demonstration will prove 1+1 doesn't = 2. It's possible! Therefore you cannot conclude it has been logically demonstrated or even that it's true that 1+1=2!" "Fermat's Last Theorem has been formally proven." "Maybe there is an error in the proof, some logically necessary fact we don't yet know about that entails the theorem is false. It's possible! Therefore Fermat's Last Theorem has not been formally proven and we shouldn't believe it's true." And on and on. This is how you are arguing. It's the stupidest argument on the planet. Because it entails you should deny all knowledge, because "maybe" some unknown fact refutes it. It displays total ignorance of how logic works, how probability works, how knowledge works, and how sanity works.

As with God being the necessary being, so also angels moving planets is one of the historically available options on the palette.

As long as you don't exclude it, positively, like by saying explicitly "angels don't exist" (which atheists can and Christians can't) you cannot exclude that gravity is a non-explanation OR incomplete explanation of planetary movements.

Obviously, this is sth quite other than appealing to a very tenuous potentiality of a future demonstration 1+1 NOT = 2 or Fermats Last Theorem to be disproven.

As to Fermat's Last Theorem, I am for the moment agnostic, but may be more positive once I have reviewed the apt video on Numberphile or some other math channel on youtube.

But as to 1+1=2, it is the very definition of 2. Precisely as 1+2 is the very definition of 3. And so on.

You cannot disprove a basic definition.

You also cannot disprove a conclusion which follows syllogistically from such, like 2 + 2 = 4.

2 = 1 + 1 (definition)
Therefore + 2 = + 1 + 1 (transitivity of + function)
Therefore 2 + 2 = 2 + 1 + 1
But 2 + 1 = 3 (definition)
Therefore 2 + 1 + 1 = 3 + 1
Therefore 2 + 2 = 3 + 1
But 3 + 1 = 4 (definition)
Therefore 2 + 2 = 4. QED

Here each step has been explicitly argued. I have not counted on omitting sth which could be there.

I have not said "we have 2 + 2" (before my eyes) when I could be wrong and there could be 2 or 4 more hidden (under a table or behind my back). I have not counted on omitting any proposed solutions to a problem.

But if you argue that gravity and inertia explain (exclusive of alternative or complementing explanations) planetary motions from the masses of themselves and of the star they orbit and from initial conditions, and from that, that geocentrism must be wrong, you have omitted that angels could explain planetary and solar motions around the Zodiac (itself in daily motion around earth, a motion explainable by God), and you have omitted that they could explain part of the motions (like a bikers nudges explains part of the bike's motions, while inertia and gravity explain and weight of biker and surface under bike explain a lot of them). Such an omission means you have not demonstrated what you claim to have demonstrated, that "gravitation [and inertia] adequately and correctly explains planetary motions, which means we have to ditch geocentrism, despite its being prima facie empiric".

The best you have is, "if we ditch geocentrism, we can explain daily and periodical motions without God or angels", to which I counter, "if we accept God and angels, we can accept geocentrism, which is good since it is prima facie empiric".

And if you omit to show that God is not involved as the necessary being in your premises, you have also not shown that nothing would give rise to anything without God, you have only shown that nothing would give rise to anything under the circumstances of being only relatively nothing and involving existence of logically necessary existance. Which, as long as you have not excluded that, could be God.

If you like, it could be Dr. Who, as long as you have not excluded that. So, let's exclude Dr. Who from being so.

Dr. Who according to the televised series is actually suffering a few death threats (I have gathered). But the necessary being as such cannot cease to exist nor start to exist. Therefore, Dr. Who cannot be the necessary being as such. If you were claiming he could be an incarnation of the necessary being, I think you know there is a better candidate for that. You have spent books on arguing against that, right?

Done. Dr. Who is not the necessary being.

YOUR TURN, for excluding God, if you can!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2018

Various Responses to Carrier

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

1) An excuse.

In my correspondence with you, I missed that you had given a response to me in a comment.

When mirroring this correspondence, on my correspondence blog, I saw it. I caught up.

2) On presuppositionalism.

"But the bulk of this Christian’s argument is presuppositionalism"

Wrong, the bulk of my previous post here is a theistic interpretation of the 8 propositions. However, I did mention presuppositionalism, since I thought it worthwhile to get a red herring out of the way.

Me: “whenever we deal with logical reasoning, we presuppose (hence the name) that there is such a thing as objective logic and that it is accessible to us.”

Carrier: "I didn’t just assert Premise 1, I gave arguments for Premise 1, and linked to even further arguments directly discussing the ontology of logic and why logically impossible things can never exist."

Premise 1 = Proposition 1.

And you actually did it by ... reasoning. Why is this significant? By dancing, you presuppose that dancing is meaningful, by reasoning you presuppose reasoning is so (on whatever level you are reasoning, and you were not limiting yourself to a detective story about agencies similar to yourself, as Sherlock Holmes usually is). You can reason that dancing is meaningful without presupposing it, since you can reason without dancing. But you cannot reason to reasoning being meaningful without presupposing it, since you cannot reason without reasoning. So, you were reasoning ... about ultimate reality.

Thereby showing you already presupposed reasoning a valid approach about the reality not just before your eyes but any number of lightyears away, any number of millions of years ago, and as for sth I actually think will exist, any number of billions of years hence. This is a fairly staggering claim if your reasoning is just a byproduct of chemical processess in your brain.

I most definitely agree that logically impossible things can't exist. One of them being a reasoner which is a by-product of matter doing purely material processes. These following laws which are not the laws of logic.

But you don't agree this is logically impossible, so, I am asking how you can possibly make such vast claims for reason. Not meaning you shouldn't - but meaning how you account for them.

My point is not that Proposition 1 is in any way shape or form wrong, indeed, the bulk of my reply means the very opposite.

My point is, its being true and accessible as certain truth to us presupposes certain things. You could of course say you had been careful to talk only of logical contradictions not occurring, not of our knowing anything about them, but the rest means you are trying to validly deduce sth from it, which involves a claim of knowing sth about them, which involves a claim of being a mind (only minds can know anything, and no, AI machines do not know, speaking of computers "knowing" is a pathetic fallacy, a description of how their behaviour seems - to a mind that knows) - and involves a claim of knowing about both mind and matter that logical necessity cannot fail and logical contradiction cannot prevail.

This was however not my main point, I'll actually get back to this at last.

3) On Boltzmann Gods

What you pretend to respond to is:

Supposing there had been a nothing and any universe could pop out of it, how do you exclude a universe popping out of it by first a god doing so and than that god creating?

What you actually respond involves an affirmative response to universes like ours is on the atheistic view producing sth like gods.

"But inevitably. And in fact, it would happen again and again, forever. So when all is said and done, there will be infinitely many more Boltzmann brains created in this universe than evolved brains like ours. The downside, of course, is that by far nearly all these brains will immediately die in the icy vacuum of space (don’t worry, by far most of these won’t survive long enough to experience even one moment of consciousness). And they would almost never have any company.

Which is how we know we aren’t Boltzmann brains"

[and]

"What is a Boltzmann god? Think of a mind that is as near to perfection and power as could ever be physically made, a supermind, with a superbody, maybe even a body spanning and permeating a whole vast region of spacetime. The improbability of this is staggering. But remember, everything with a nonzero probability is going to happen, eventually. In fact, it’s going to happen infinitely many times."

From The God Impossible
by Richard Carrier on March 8, 2012
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/510

That was not the proposition. The proposition was rather, what if the singularity producing OUR universe was - a god. In other words, how do you exclude propositions like Enuma Elish or even better Theogony?

Also, if you are logical about "infinite time" you will need to accept the Boltzmann God already was produced in some universe - so, how can you exclude such a Bolzmann God from having produced ours?

Note, that would very much NOT be the Christian proposal. You very rightly distinguish this from a monotheism which posits one single God as the source not just of our universe, but of any possible one.

4) On the main issue.

It is a contradiction for that which cannot not exist to not exist. This is true whatever this logically necessary entity is. And it is also true whether we have identified it rightly, or wrongly, or not at all.

If the necessary being is space-time and particles, then it is a contradiction for space-time and particles not to exist, whether it be thought the necessary existence is space-time and particles, or the monotheistic God or the matter not be decided.

If the necessary being is the monotheistic God, then it is a contradiction for the monotheistic God not to exist, whether it be thought the necessary existence is the monotheistic God, or space-time and matter or the matter not be decided.

You have given an excellent argument on why there is such a thing as a necessary being. Suppose all beings were non-necessary.

"But remember, everything with a nonzero probability is going to happen, eventually."

Then sooner or later all beings would not exist. And with an infinity of time past, it would already have happened.

But if at a point nothing existed - nothing could come from it.

This is of course what you contest with your 8 propositions, but then you are not really granting "nothing existed" as part of the scenario. You are only granting "nothing except what is logically necessary existed". And that would imply the existence of a logically necessary existence.

Now, I was, and I am, giving "the monotheistic God" as at least one of the alternatives for "necessary existence". I am then inserting that into the 8 propositions and showing how very Theistic they become with that insertion.

Now, I was not setting out to prove that the monotheistic God is that necessary existence. I was merely showing that if He was, the consequences of all your 8 propositions are perfectly orthodox. And also challenging you to - if you could - deny that identification.

Now, if you were only Agnostic, the burden of proof would be on me, but as you are a strong Atheist, we have about an equal one.

And I thought, as you actually seemed unconscious of how Theistic your 8 propositions are with such an identification of necessary existence, maybe you should tell us you were conscious of it and show why they could not possibly tolerate such a Theistic interpretation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Moses
4.IX.2018

Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God?

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

In answer to:

The Problem with Nothing: Why The Indefensibility of Ex Nihilo Nihil Goes Wrong for Theists
by Richard Carrier on August 29, 2018
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14486

First your eight propositions:

• Proposition 1: That which is logically impossible can never exist or happen.
  
  
• Proposition 2: The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that which is logically necessary.
  
  
• Proposition 3: If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than what is logically necessary.
  
  
• Proposition 4: If nothing governs or dictates what will become of Nothing (other than what is logically necessary), then nothing (other than what is logically necessary) prevents anything from happening to that Nothing.
  
  
• Proposition 5: Every separate thing that can logically possibly happen when there is Nothing (other than Nothing remaining nothing) entails the appearance of a universe.
  
  
• Proposition 6: If there is Nothing, then there is nothing to limit the number of universes that can logically possibly appear.
  
  
• Proposition 7: If nothing (except logical necessity) prevents anything from happening to Nothing, then every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring.
  
  
• Proposition 8: If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring.

Now, two observations:

• Supposing there had been a nothing and any universe could pop out of it, how do you exclude a universe popping out of it by first a god doing so and than that god creating?
  
  
• But this is not the Christian line. The Christian line is rather : existence as such is necessary and the logically necessary existence as such is called God.

Here is how it would apply:

• Proposition 1': God not existing can never exist or happen.
  
  
• Proposition 2': The most nothingly state of nothing that can ever obtain, is a state of affairs of zero size lacking all properties and contents, except that God exists.
  
  
• Proposition 3': If there was ever Nothing, then nothing governs or dictates what will become of that Nothing, other than God.
  
  
• Proposition 4': If nothing governs or dictates what will become of Nothing (other than God), then nothing (other than God) prevents anything from happening to that Nothing.
  
  
• Proposition 5': Every separate thing that can logically possibly happen when there is Nothing (other than Nothing remaining nothing) entails the appearance of a universe.
  
  
• Proposition 6': If there were Nothing, then there were nothing to limit the number of universes that can logically possibly appear.
  
  If there is Nothing except God, then there is nothing except God to limit the number of universes that can logically possibly appear.
  
  
• Proposition 7': If nothing (except God) prevents anything from happening to Nothing, then every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring (to God).
  
  
• Proposition 8': If every logically possible thing that can happen to Nothing has an equal probability of occurring, then every logically possible number of universes that can appear has an equal probability of occurring (to God).

Note, a universe other than The Blessed Trinity (which is God) does not just occur. It has no inherent necessity of existence, and it needs to come into existence by sth necessarily existing contributing to its contingent existence. So God can create exactly any universe He likes to create, between Father, Son and Holy Ghost all agreeing.

And this is exactly what Catholic scholastics have claimed.

A) If you go to Index in stephani tempier condempnationes*
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

and go on to:

Capitulum VI : errores de Deo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html

you will find one proposition, numbered by Englishmen as error 9 of the VI chapter, in original Paris document as error 34:

Quod causa prima non posset plures mundos facere.

As a CSL fan, for obvious reasons I call this "the Narnia clause". In my fan fic on Susan Pevensie, King Tirian by Aslan is shown the bishop who "allowed Him to create Narnia" - a bishop in rose garments, as Tempier wore them on Laetare Sunday.**

B) a certain cardinal who became Pope Urban VIII had told one Galileo Galilei several times over, it would seem:

God could create the universe any way He liked it, and God could make the universe appear to us any way He liked it.

The proto-Krauss who was less philosophical than the future Pope like Krauss is less philosophical than Carrier, put this argument into the mouth of one Simplicio or Simplicius in the work called Dialogus - sorry, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. It seems that Simplicio was nevertheless based on someone else, but he included an argument based on the future Pope. Or, in 1632, when the book came out, Barberini was already Pope.***

Now, a minor quibble on Presuppositionalism.

I suppose weirdos like presuppositionalists might try to deny this and assert that logically contradictory states of affairs can exist or happen, but for God stopping it with his magical mind rays. But that’s honesty just tinfoil hat.

That is not at all what presuppositionalists think. The real argument is rather: whenever we deal with logical reasoning, we presuppose (hence the name) that there is such a thing as objective logic and that it is accessible to us. An Atheist might argue that "objective logic" = physical necessity (actually, this equation could be behind Atheists claiming miracles are illogical or miraculous explanations are illogical), but the problem is how an Atheist explains that such a thing as objective logic can have an accurate reflection at least on some level as universally valid objective logic° - of a mind emerging from organic urges using a language evolved around mating behaviours analogous to bird songs. And consisting ultimately of intricately arranged particles of matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Rose of Lima
30.VIII.2018

* Short URL now https://tinyurl.com/tempier - since Carrier reads Tacitus, reading either Tempier or St Thomas will be "child's play".

** Susan's dreams become a book
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2011/12/susans-dreams-become-book.html

The Chronicle of Susan Pevensie chapters are, unlike most blog posts, not signed, not just because they are chapters in a book, but also because I modify them - and the Tempier passage was added after its original composition.

*** I have not checked original sources on this one, am going by secondary sources that seemed credible enough. I'd be somewhat surprised, but not totally shocked if what I said was spurious. If it was, it was at least credible as allegation about Catholic Scholasticism of the XVII C.

° See the discussion by C. S. Lewis in Miracles. I think the relevant chapter is 3 The Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism, starting in this edition on page 17.

"Why Atheists Are So Angry" (13 Things I Learned ...)

Quoting an internet Atheist known as HolyKoolaid:

If Christians didn't want the Quran taught in school, what made them think the rest of us wanted their holy texts shoved down our throats? Religion stifles progress and slows humanity down. Whether it was the blocking of stem cell research, the Pope speaking out against condom use in AIDs-ridden parts of Africa, covering up child rape to protect the faith, or simply the exaltation of faith over science, I saw how muchdamage was done by religion.

Let's deal with it point by point:

If Christians didn't want the Quran taught in school,

I do want Quran taught in Muslim schools to Muslim children of Muslim parents - just as I want Catholic Catechism taught in Catholic schools to Catholic children of Catholic parents. What I do not want is all children of all parents being forced to same school.

what made them think the rest of us wanted their holy texts shoved down our throats?

Excellent point against compulsory school!

Religion stifles progress

Sure, that is what Nimrod complained of when Hebrews were out of his rocket project.

But if Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur finally saw rocket projects launched, it is partly thanks to Hebrews who had refused to take part in the building of the Tower of Babel - since the newer rocket projects were based in a culture at least partly still heir to Abrahamic religion.

and slows humanity down.

God slowed humanity down at Genesis 11:1-9.

If God had allowed Nimrod to make his rocket project with Uranium, there would have been no space travel, just another mushroom cloud, well before Hiroshima and too soon after those in what the Mahabharata Wars presumely were like.

Whether it was the blocking of stem cell research,

Where excellent results have been obtained in adult stem cells - thanks precisely to those blocking. But thanks for admitting you like the idea of a murdered fœtus having his or her cells indefinitely reused for research.

the Pope speaking out against condom use in AIDs-ridden parts of Africa,

"Benedict XVI" was not the Pope, since he is no Catholic. He also did NOT speak out against condoms enough, what he said was condoms only are not a solution. He should have said, they should not even be a normal part of a solution.

covering up child rape to protect the faith,

Or to protect the Vatican II apostasy ... as much as Atheists like to cover up child rape or teen statutory rape (more often than actual rape on actual children in either case) in popular atheist gym teachers and similar.

or simply the exaltation of faith over science,

OK, how often do you see that? What is the "damage"?

I saw how much damage was done by religion.

If I get you right, the damage done by religion in this last case is religious people being religious ... you may be thankful for your dorm mates who harrassed you at college, I am not for the Atheists who harrassed me at boarding school - except for one point, they showed Protestantism cannot stand alone, it dépends on Catholicism. I had had the idea Catholics and Protestants both depended on same Bible, and once certain conflicts were out of the way one could calmly agree to disagree.

But Protestants got the Bible from Catholics and Jews and Orthodox. It cannot stand on Judaism, since it rejects the NT. It cannot stand on either Catholicism or Orthodoxy - since these share traits they reject. So, I quit being a Protestant and started praying the Rosary thanks to those Atheists. Not exactly what they had counted on, but thanks anyway.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy
Invention of St Stephen Protomartyr
3.VIII.2018

Hierosolymis Inventio beatissimi Stephani Protomartyris, et sanctorum Gamalielis, Nicodemi et Abibonis, sicut Luciano Presbytero divinitus revelatum est, Honorii Principis tempore.

Answering William P. Lazarus

Article

William P. Lazarus : The Bible as (Non) History
https://williamplazarus.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-bible-as-non-history.html

This will now be analysed, sentence by sentence for a good portion, quasi as a dialogue between us:

William P. Lazarus

For the past few days, several of my religious Facebook friends have climbed back on the old warhorse by claiming that the Bible is historically accurate.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'll reduce the diversity of topics by sticking to historical.

History involves a human observer of the facts. Genesis 2 account of Adam's and Eve's creation can be history, from the point on when Adam is there. Genesis 1 is, very rarely for the historical books of the Bible, mostly not even purported history, normal sense, since it involves, up to verse 27 or 28, no human observers. It is revelation, given to Moses on Mt Sinai.

Compare how much in Greek paganism is involved in the Theogony, much of which (whether Uranos and Gaia or birth of Apollon and Artemis) is in this sense not history.

However, in a larger sense this also is history, as in known facts from the series of events, since they were revealed by God, they are known, even if not having human observers.

Also, historical accuracy is not affected by scientifically inaccurate terminology or beliefs of those recording it. A Hittite account of Battle of Kadesh is not affected by Hittites probably believing in Flat Earth. So much less is an account affected by simply another terminology being used than the now current one.

Note, historical accuracy is not always tied to inerrancy. Inerrancy also requires accuracy of endorsed beliefs.

William P. Lazarus

Scientific research on chemicals found on Earth, in moon rocks and in meteors clearly shows a consistent result of about 4.6 billion years.

Hans Georg Lundahl

This is about pre-human "history". Scientist's rivalling God on Mt Sinai or Nine Muses to Hesiod.

It is ALSO a very blanket statement of full confidence with overdone wording when it comes to uniformitarian science.

William P. Lazarus

Such evidence from folds in the Earth ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not sure how folds are supposed to be related to deep age. Details could be welcome.

William P. Lazarus

stratification such as visible in the Grand Canyon

Hans Georg Lundahl

Grand Canyon is very unique in its succession of diverse biotic strata.

It is also almost entirely marine (like other successions, the one in Bonaparte Basin involving trilobites below elasmosaurs).

On "land", meaning on what was land at the relevant time or times, you simply do not find strata above each other.

I particularly researched Karoo on this one, you don't find a Triassic fossile and then dig deeper and find a Permian one a bit lower same spot, but Triassic and Permian fossils are in different "assemblage zones" - so the near surface finds of Karoo form a map, which uniformitarians explain as lower strata cropping out in relation to more recent ones not completely covering them, but which can also be simply the map of the bio-zones in the moment when the Flood hit what is now Karoo.

Since Flood is Biblical history, this is important for Global Flood argument.

William P. Lazarus

and multiple geological studies

Hans Georg Lundahl

Translates as : "someone else has argued, I don't bother to go into details, I just trust them, because many conclude the same thing".

If he had lived in Germany in 1937, would he have said that too?

William P. Lazarus

demonstrate the vast number of years needed to develop today’s environment.

Hans Georg Lundahl

We Creationists know very well what Evolutionists try to demonstrate. We just don't agree they succeed very well.

William P. Lazarus

Simply adding up biblical years is pointless and completely refuted by scientific study.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Where do I start?

Well, adding up years in a source you don't trust on chronology is pointless to you, adding up years in a source you do trust on chronology is not so.

Instead of telling us what he trusts, WPL might try to find out how we argue about what he is trusting, and try to refute that (no such chance so far).

William P. Lazarus

In the beginning, the order of creation starts with the Earth and places stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, as well as flowering plants ahead of animals. Science has easily demonstrated that’s the reverse of reality.

Hans Georg Lundahl

We agree on rejecting Theogony by Hesiod.

My choice for sth better is Genesis 1, his choice is evolutionist ideology, mislabelled as "science", which is about as gross a mislabelling as mislabelling following an antibirth policy (of state or company you work with) is by some mislabelled "responsibility".

What WPL choses to label things is not a valid argument for them actually being so. And, SO FAR, he has been content with showing a blanket trust in evolutionism rather than entering into what was rightly called "the scientific detail".

William P. Lazarus

On the first day, God created light, but the sun and moon don’t arrive until the fourth day: “the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night.” However, the moon has no light.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Except the Sun, by which it is a light to us. Here on the centre of the universe.

William P. Lazarus

It only reflects the sun.

Hans Georg Lundahl

As I just mentioned. Which makes it a light source, second hand, but still so to us.

William P. Lazarus

Nevertheless, repeated biblical writers in the Old and New Testament somehow think the moon creates its own light

Hans Georg Lundahl

A clear reference would be very nice.

William P. Lazarus

and that the stars are incredibly close by.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Again, a clear reference would be very nice.

My own point (stars created on day 4 including fix stars and being visible to Adam and Eve on the evening of day 6) would perhaps be labelled as "incredibly" by WPL, but perhaps you had sth else in mind?

William P. Lazarus

Vegetation, created on the third day, would have no sun, based on the biblical version.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Since light was already created, that is no problem. Vegetation needs light with a spectrum close to sunlight, not that the actual source of it be the actual sun. As I already mentioned in the FB debate where he brought it up.

This starts looking like a standard list of arguments which WPL seems unable to discard even one of even when it has been refuted just a few days ago (and he tried no refutation of my refutation).

Demonstration : in Amsterdam in cellars, illegal marijuana growers do cultivate plants that have never in their lives been exposed to one ray of sunlight. (Source : The Botany of Desire). Why? Bc they are 24 by 24 exposed to halogen lamps.

If halogen light is good enough for plants (and marijuana hemp has no different chlorophyll from all other green plants), why should a light God Himself is supernaturally shining not be good enough for them?

Btw, I am not recommending cultivating marijuana hemp, I mentioned the fact because it proves that total lack of sunlight can be replaced by other light sources.

William P. Lazarus

Noah’s flood is impossible, not just from all the geological evidence to the contrary.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think I just mentioned my viewpoint on "geology" or palaeontology. You know, Grand Canyon context. I gave exempla of Karoo and of Bonaparte Basin.

William P. Lazarus

Scientific research into DNA shows that, for humans to be as diverse as we are, the population had to contain a minimum of 1,500 unrelated individuals, not just a single family on a floating zoo.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Considering the number of alleles on each gene and considering some alleles are mutations arisen after the Flood (bleeder's disease or hemophilia, probably even white skin), I would like to know what that is supposed to be based on.

Here is a CMI study on this very question:

Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics
by Dr Robert W. Carter | Published: 11 May 2010 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
And a shorter summing up in a feedback:

Is there enough time in the Bible to account for all the human genetic diversity?
Published: 17 September 2011 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/bible-time-human-genetic-diversity

Note, we are 2018, WPL is ignoring answers which were already there in 2010 and 2011.

William P. Lazarus

Sodom and Gomorrah, two large and prosperous cities supposedly destroyed by God, are phantoms. No other culture mentioned the cities despite voluminous records, and no trace of them has ever been found.

Hans Georg Lundahl

As far as I have mainly heard, both were in the Dead Sea.

Note, while they were in fact sunk somewhat more recently than 1935 BC, close to or in 1916 BC, St Jerome's chronology, as 1935 BC carbon dates to 3200 BC, and as even Joseph in Egypt carbon dates to c. 2600 BC (Djoser being obviously Joseph's pharao, see Egyptian memory of Joseph as Imhotep), and since "extensive records" are from at least recently carbon dated 2400 BC (after Joseph) - except the original records behind Moses' Genesis and some other records also revalorised in contexts now labelled as "mythical" (Ramayana and Mahabharata), this means it is very clear why Sodom and Gomorrah are not mentioned. IN Greek myth, Abraham and Sarah and also Lot and his daughters are reworked as family situation of Deucalion and Pyrrha, transferring them to Flood avoided direct mention of Sodom and Gomorrah, since people with similar vices might not care to recall a divine punishment on these.

But as to records from the neighbourhood and from the time, back when this happened the burial of Djoser was still some centuries off and this means we don't have records for this time.

Here it can be noted, for Greek and Roman and Hebrew chronologies, we have continuous record (though its early stages in each is disputed as to historicity by modern scholars), and that continuous record reaches to us.

For Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, excepting Manetho and Berossus, Hittite, Minoan, etc records, we are piecing together a scrap here and a scrap there. This means that we cannot go to a calendar to check when Ebla tablets date from, but it is more like carbon dating one bit about them, or more, and relating the rest to that or those carbon dates.

This means, knowing when Ebla tablets are from by adding up years in records is as impossible as knowing distance of stars by angle of reflected sunlight.

Wiki says:

They all date to the period between ca. 2500 BC and the destruction of the city ca. 2250 BC.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Tantalisingly, I have no full assurance whether real date for 2250 BC is actually fall of Jericho date (1470 BC or years just after, which is how my friend more or less such Damien Mackey would like to identify the layers of Jericho - he eschews even mentioning carbon dates) or rather before Moses was born (if Sesostris III was the Pharao just at beginning of Exodus, as I tend to think, since his burial ship is like carbon dated 1715 BC for a real date close to 1590 BC).

I also do not know if the date "2500 BC" is done by adding up years up to "2250 BC" (whether 1470 BC or between 1730 and 1590, so 1720 or between 1980 and 1830) or whether "2500 BC" is derived from another carbon date (in which case it would normally be squeezed in between 1730 BC and 1590, see previous discussion).

But I do know that a Biblically recalibrated carbon dating opens up for Ebla tablets being later than destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

William P. Lazarus

The tiny bit of ruins today erroneously called Sodom shows no sign of the “fire and brimstone” and contained maybe six homes in contrast with the biblical account.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I am not sure what you are talking about.

I would tend to think Sodom as a city is now under Dead Sea and I have not seen any reference to Mount Sodom even containing any ruins. But if it actually does contain six houses, so what? It would still not be the Biblical city of Sodom in its entirety.

William P. Lazarus

The story of Jewish slavery doesn’t match known history. For starters, Egypt did not use forced labor to build anything.

Hans Georg Lundahl

That is a very sweeping statement.

Next, Gulag archipelago is probably unhistorical too, since Soviet authorities don't record all cruelties done in Gulag - and therefore the story is undocumented, unsupported by "real" documents.

What you are actually talking about is Egypt's normal relations between Egyptians.

You are also talking as if every monument in Egypt (I don't think Israelites were involved in any Pyramid by the way) was well known as to how it was built, much like the building of Versailles.

No, 17th C AD is a tiny bit better recorded than 1590 to 1510 BC in Egypt (whatever the Egyptological dates for this, I'd go on between Sesostris III and Hyksos invasion).

William P. Lazarus

Moreover, documented evidence, including archaeological, written language and other finds from the region, shows that Jews lived in what is now Israel the entire time period of their supposed sojourn in Egypt.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Probably involves some carbon misdating, among other things.

I'd like to know the details of the case being made, though.

William P. Lazarus

Moreover, many of the cities cited in the text did not exist until centuries later.

Hans Georg Lundahl

A city can have a rotation of existence and non-existence. Ramesses might be what you are referring to.

And Ramesses can be a name given that city in the time of Ramses II, but it existed earlier, and priests made a linguistic update in the Torah by changing the name to Ramesses - or it could be quite another origin to the name.

Patterns of evidence: Exodus. A review
A new film shows evidence of the Hebrew occupation of ancient Egypt
by Gary Bates | Published: 15 January 2015 (GMT+10)
https://creation.com/patterns-of-evidence

According to this, it could seem "Ramesses" was Avaris.

Some others have identified it with Ain Shams, for which I don't know the carbon dates. Avaris seems to have been occupied mainly by Hyksos, who I think were Amalekites.

It could of course be also the case that Avaris was first the Ramesses of Exodus 1:11 and later also served for Hyksos (carbon date 1783 seems to be previous to Exodus).

Wiki says

It was occupied from about 1783 to 1550 BC, or from the Thirteenth Dynasty of Egypt through the second intermediate period until its destruction by Ahmose I, the first Pharaoh of the Eighteenth dynasty.

William P. Lazarus

Scholars now think the Exodus account was a fabrication to justify a war with Egypt in the 8th century B.C.E., when the first texts were written down.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Anti-Christian and Anti-Torahic ones, yes ...

William P. Lazarus

Yes, that’s an interpretation, but it matches the complete lack of evidence of any wandering in the Sinai Desert or Jewish presence in Egypt.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Desert wanderings are easily lost track of.

Complete lack of Israelite presence in Egypt?

I must admit, I was searching for a CMI article which at the moment I do not find.

William P. Lazarus

In Leviticus, we are told that hares and coneys (akin to a rabbit) are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof. However, those animals are ruminants; they don’t have cuds.

Hans Georg Lundahl

You mean are NOT ruminants.

The Hebrew verb is so unspecific it need not always refer to rumination.

ALSO you have strayed from the stated topic of historical accuracy. This is terminology. And no, "chewing the cud" in Biblical sense is not the same thing as being in modern zoological sense a "ruminant."

William P. Lazarus

In Daniel, the author doesn’t know the name of the king. He identifies Belshazzar as the king. Here’s actual history: Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE. His son, Awil-Marduk (who the Bible calls "Evilmerodach") followed him on the throne, but was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur, in 560. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. Belshazzar was a son of Nabonidus, but not king or a relative of Nebuchadnezzar.

Hans Georg Lundahl

One problem is taking fairly fragmentary Mesopotamic accounts or even Herodotus as more reliable than the Bible just because it is not the Bible. A bit like a very unfair policeman or shrink could find anyone more reliable than his suspect or patient.

Another one is not checking whether certain names can refer to same person. Nabonidus is NOT an Akkadian or Hebrew form of anything, but is Herodotus.

This opens the question on what he would be in Hebrew?

Well, Damien Mackey goes for Nabonidus = Nebuchadnezzar.

Which obviously would make Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

Here are the equations in dynastic series:

• Nabu-apla-usur
• Labashi-Marduk
• Nabu-kudurri-usur II = Nabonidus
• Amel-Marduk = Neriglissar = Belshazzar

The Bible doesn't specify that Belshazzar and Evilmerodach are different persons.

Damien gives the etymologies for Belshazzar and for Neriglissar as Belsharezer and Nergalsharezer - which is basically same name except for difference of theonym in the theophoric name. So, if Belshazzar was fond of theophoric names why not add Marduk to Nergal and Bel, which means he could easily also be Evilmerodach.

Here is his paper:

If King Belshazzar madeDaniel 3rd, who was 2nd?
by Damien F. Mackey
http://www.academia.edu/23063639/If_King_Belshazzar_made_Daniel_3rd_who_was_2nd

William P. Lazarus

Not one to stop there, the author then makes Darius the successor to Cyrus. Actually, that was Cambyses.

Hans Georg Lundahl

It is actually even more complicated. Citing Cambyses involves relying on Herodot.

Here is an actual phrase in Daniel:

"Now Daniel continued unto the reign of Darius, and the reign of Cyrus the Persian."
[Daniel 6:28]

Seems Cyrus could even be successor of Darius?

I'd trust Daniel over Herodotus, who did not even pretend to have been personally involved in Persia back then, but was writing a retrospect about prequels to Greco-Persian wars.

Messy things are likely to later get tidied up a bit. Not saying tradition is unreliable as totally NOT reliable at all, but tidying things up that are complicated would be one of the turns it naturally takes.

William P. Lazarus

The census described in Luke took place, in 6 C.E., 10 years after Herod the Great died. However, Matthew said Jesus was born when Herod was in power. According to Luke, Emperor Augustus ordered the whole world registered. Not true. In fact, the census was held only to determine taxable property in Judea, which had been placed under Roman control.

Hans Georg Lundahl

There seem to be two problems with one solution.

The 6 AD census (if from then) limited to Judaea is another one than the one ordered by Augustus for the whole world (a census which could have been of loyalty rather than property).

It would involve retranslating a phrase as "before Quirinus etc".

William P. Lazarus

No one had to return home, such as Joseph from Galilee to Bethlehem.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Any census I have heard of, one usually registers at one's hometown.

THEN I also think Joseph took a polemic liberty with that wording.

Suppose he had lived in Nazareth all the time up to then, except brief hospitalities (including in Bethlehem).

Suppose he then hears an order about registering in "his" city. Well, ancestrally, Bethlehem was his. This was also potentially a move to underline Messianic connections of his family, as the Messiah had not come yet, but as Mary was exspecting under circumstances which on the angel's words were - suspiciously like Messianic ones.

William P. Lazarus

Luke just wanted to get Jesus to Bethlehem for polemic purposes. So did Matthew; he just used a different device that contradicted Luke.

Hans Georg Lundahl

No contradiction. In Matthew, nothing is said of how JOseph came to Bethlehem. In Luke there is nothing saying Nazareth was not also a point of return after Egypt.

William P. Lazarus

Mark and John are sure Jesus was born in Galilee.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I think the wording was often "from Galilee" or "from Nazareth". Or nouns or adjectives meaning inhabitants or people born somewhere. Not always identic to actual birth place. I'm Viennese by birth and Malmowite by upbringing from pre-teens to adult (and remained there a while too).

Neither of these other two Gospels has any account of His birth, both start the story when John is baptising. In other words, they are not specific enough to warrant such a conclusion as WPL's.

William P. Lazarus

There was no murder of the innocents as described in Matthew. Josephus, who left us a detailed history of the time period, hated Herod and yet knew nothing about this supposed slaughter.

Hans Georg Lundahl

How much text did Josephus dedicate to Herod?

Had murder of innocents become a taboo subject on which Josephus could have had scarce access to the facts (he wrote far later than St Matthew).

William P. Lazarus

One of my favorites in the New Testament is where Paul was bitten by a snake on Malta. The pagans there decided Paul must be a god because he didn’t die. Except there are no snakes on Malta. Never have been. (That’s true in Ireland, too, despite stories of Patrick.)

Hans Georg Lundahl

Unless St Paul drove the snakes out of Malta ... recent changes in legislation and attitudes are likely to bring snakes back to both places.

Or unless another ship with a transport of snakes had previously stranded there.

Or, why not go to a Catholic resource on this one:

SNAKES OF THE MALTESE ISLANDS
http://www.shadowservices.com/nature/Maltese/biology/snakes.htm

Telescopus fallax fallax, Elaphe situla leopardina, Coluber florulentus algirus, Coluber viridiflavus carbonarius.

William P. Lazarus

Close examination of records from the time of Pontius Pilate show that the description of the trial of Jesus bears no resemblance to documented Roman trials.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"records from the time of Pontius Pilate" = Gospels (unless you consider Acts of Pilate as genuine or unless you consider last chapter of Velleius Paterculus as "records" - it's a panegyric on Tiberius).

William P. Lazarus

For one, judges were never seen.

Hans Georg Lundahl

I'd like to know the source for that one. "Never" is also a big word implying a uniform routine which could never have been varied for whatever reason.

For one, it's not totally a Roman trial, it's a Jewish trial followed up by a Roman validation.

William P. Lazarus

There was no “tradition” of freeing anyone on Passover.

Hans Georg Lundahl

In Rome? Certainly not. In Holy Land? Very possibly as an accomodation to local tastes.

William P. Lazarus

Romans never “wash hands” to free themselves from guilt. That was a Jewish custom.

Hans Georg Lundahl

And no British official in Pakistan ever said "Inshallah" and as to Nelson saying "Kismet" it is probably faked, he really must have been saying "kiss me" ... I sense a total, but very, very total incomprehension of how colonisers deal with natives (perhaps because Zionists are not as sensible about Palestinian sensibilities?).

Of course a coloniser picks up some local habits. He doesn't want to show himself off as a complete foreigner in all and every detail.

And suppose he had never used that gesture before or after, he would have known it. He would have been using that in a non-Roman, since very Jewish, context.

William P. Lazarus

The Sanhedrin didn’t meet on holidays;

Hans Georg Lundahl

There is some doubt on the precise chronology. It could also have made an exception.

William P. Lazarus

there’s no record of any earthquake in that time.

Hans Georg Lundahl

By what Institute of Seismology?

William seems to imply we have about as complete a record of that decade - fourth decade of AD - as we would have of any decade of 19th C, where some press museum certainly would preserve some newsclip for an event which happened at least in any big place.

Also, the circumstances of that earthquake are such that it could very easily have become taboo because of the Christian implications, directly after Matthew published his Gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic) original. If so, that would explain why subsequent Gospellers don't mention it.

"The mountains tremble at him, and the hills are made desolate: and the earth hath quaked at his presence, and the world, and all that dwell therein."
[Nahum 1:5]

Oh, an OT prophecy fulfilled in that quake ... and one involving even Adonai.

Guess why that earth quake would have become taboo among Jews VERY quickly, except those who were Christians.

(This line of thought obviously argues for Matthean priority.)

William P. Lazarus

Having written several books detailing many – but not all – of the textual problems, I see no reason to continue a familiar recitation.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Reminds me, I should continue the refutations of his The Gospel Truth: Where Did the Gospel Writers Get Their Information, which he graciously sent me ...

William P. Lazarus

[the rest]

Hans Georg Lundahl

[diatribe, not much to refute]

Carrier's Entire List

Blooper, Carrier! · Carrier's Entire List

Here is the list of evidence Carrier gives for Caligula, restricted to contemporary:

• We have busts and statues of Caligula carved from life. Indeed, Wikipedia correctly says “Based on scientific reconstructions of his official painted busts, Caligula had brown hair, brown eyes, and fair skin” (source: The Smithsonian). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have a huge number of coins minted by and naming and depicting Caligula as the extant emperor (numerous examples are also depicted and discussed at Wikipedia; here’s another; and another). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have a huge number of papyri, actually written during Caligula’s life, mentioning him as the reigning emperor (e.g. as Gaius Caesar Germanicus Augustus). Because that was how documents were dated (example; example; example). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have a huge number of contemporary inscriptions, erected by Caligula himself and eyewitnesses to his reign. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Examples. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have excavated several of Caligula’s most peculiar ships. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have actual wine barrels from Caligula’s private vineyard, with his name on them. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have his mother’s tombstone, declaring him her child. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• Pliny the Elder, an eyewitness to Caligula, supplies us a great deal of information directly from his own observations, and from government records and other eyewitness and contemporary sources. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• Other eyewitnesses and contemporaries who report on Caligula include Philo of Alexandria and Seneca, who both met with him personally, and record several things about him (e.g. Philo’s Flaccus and On [My] Embassy to Gaius [Caligula]; Seneca’s On Consolation to My Mother Helvia and On Rage and On the Constancy of the Wise).
  
  
• We have extensive accounts of Caligula in Josephus (a historian born when Caligula reigned, discussing Caligula within only 35 years of his death, and more extensively only 52 years after his death), an account that is exactly in Josephan style and rich with realistic detail (Antiquities of the Jews 18-19, written c. 93 A.D.; and Jewish War 2.184-203, written c. 76 A.D.). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No. Not even the alleged Josephan mentions of Jesus qualify on any relevant point.
  
  
• We know eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Caligula wrote works about him that are lost but that are discussed and used by later writers. These include Seneca’s own friend Fabius Rusticus; Cluvius Rufus, a senator actually involved in the assassination of Caligula (very likely these were the sources employed by Josephus, who even mentions and quotes Cluvius); the memoirs of Claudius (Caligula’s successor); the published correspondence of Augustus; and various poets (e.g. Gaetulicus). Even Caligula’s sister, Nero’s mother, Agrippina the Younger, wrote up her own memoirs that were cited and used as a source for Caligula by several later historians. Do we have anything like any of this for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We have several later critical historians writing about Caligula who name, cite and quote eyewitness, documentary, and contemporary sources for Caligula: e.g. besides Suetonius (whose example of this I already discussed), also Tacitus, Life of Agricola 10 (written c. 98 A.D.), and Annals 13.20 (written c. 116 A.D.), and even Dio Cassius (not even two hundred years after the fact). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We even have government documents that do this: for example, we have unearthed a bronze tablet copy (dating c. 168 A.D.) of a letter personally written by Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Journal of Roman Studies 1973.63) that mentions him consulting the extant register of those granted citizenship by Caligula (in a list of such registers from other emperors as well). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• Oh…and we have Caligula him-fracking-self! An inscription recording his own letter, in his own words, to the Achaean League, dated 19 August 37 A.D. (Inscriptiones Graecae 7.2711, ll. 21-43). Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.
  
  
• We also have declarations of alliance and celebration from many localities at the accession to power of Caligila. For example, the Oath declared by the Aritensians, inscribed on stone shortly after 11 May 37 A.D., elaborately asserting they shall ally with Caligula and declare his enemies their enemies; similarly the Cyzicans as well; and the Oath and Decree of Celebration of the Assians of the same year, which says they are sending an embassy “to seek an audience with and congratulate him, and beg him to remember” their city “as he personally promised when together with his father Germanicus he first set foot in our city’s province” (see Lewis & Reinhold, Vol. 2, § 3 and 9). So here we have the eyewitness, original autograph testimony, of an entire city of people. Caligula was with his father at the age of six when he visited their region (so they are trucking rather hard on the utterance of a toddler). But you don’t say this of, or send embassies to, a guy who doesn’t exist. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? Hell to the no.

Now, the main point on each item, since neither the pastor nor I are in fact trying to pretend Caligula is a myth, is Carrier's refrain : Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.

This is therefore what I intend to answer. For each item. On some, "we would not expect to". On most, yes, we do have sth like that for Jesus.

• We have busts and statues of Caligula carved from life. - And we have the miraculous likenesses sent to King Abgar, the Sudarium of Oviedo and the shroud of Turin.
  
  
• We have a huge number of coins minted by and naming and depicting Caligula as the extant emperor ... - and since Jesus was living as a subject under Herod and Augustus, and under Pilate and Tiberius, we do not at all exspect any coins to have His image in His lifetime.
  
  
• We have a huge number of papyri, actually written during Caligula’s life, mentioning him as the reigning emperor (e.g. as Gaius Caesar Germanicus Augustus). Because that was how documents were dated - and as AD dating was not yet a thing, we do not exspect to have sth like that for Jesus.
  
  
• We have a huge number of contemporary inscriptions, erected by Caligula himself and eyewitnesses to his reign. - Jesus was probably not building too many houses that still stand, since Romans swept off many in the Jewish war, back when He was serving His fosterfather as a carpenter.
  
  
• We have excavated several of Caligula’s most peculiar ships. - I'm not sure anyone claims to have timbers of St Peter's or St John's bark as relics, otherwise we do not exspect such a thing.
  
  
• We have actual wine barrels from Caligula’s private vineyard, with his name on them. - The miracle of Cana was a wine which was drunk up very quickly.
  
  
• We have his mother’s tombstone, declaring him her child. - We have the belt and the veil of the Blessed Virgin. We also have His own glorious sepulchre.
  
  
• Pliny the Elder ... - dealt with, previous post. Pliny is not so convincing as proof as Carrier would pretend, and is certainly inferior to Gospels in giving details.
  
  
• Other eyewitnesses and contemporaries who report on Caligula include Philo of Alexandria and Seneca, who both met with him personally, and record several things about him (e.g. Philo’s Flaccus and On [My] Embassy to Gaius [Caligula]; Seneca’s On Consolation to My Mother Helvia and On Rage and On the Constancy of the Wise). - Pliny, Philo and Seneca all give less information in* Caligula than Gospels do about Our Lord Jesus Christ. Citing them would be like having no Gospels and only citing Epistles and perhaps Apocalypse.
  
  
• We have extensive accounts of Caligula in Josephus (a historian born when Caligula reigned, discussing Caligula within only 35 years of his death, and more extensively only 52 years after his death), an account that is exactly in Josephan style and rich with realistic detail (Antiquities of the Jews 18-19, written c. 93 A.D.; and Jewish War 2.184-203, written c. 76 A.D.). - If I got this correctly, 22 chapters in Josephus deal with Caligula. Matthew 28, Mark 16 (44), Luke 24 (68), John 21 (89), Acts 1:st chapter (90).
  
  
• We know eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Caligula wrote works about him that are lost but that are discussed and used by later writers. These include Seneca’s own friend Fabius Rusticus; Cluvius Rufus, a senator actually involved in the assassination of Caligula (very likely these were the sources employed by Josephus, who even mentions and quotes Cluvius); the memoirs of Claudius (Caligula’s successor); the published correspondence of Augustus; and various poets (e.g. Gaetulicus). Even Caligula’s sister, Nero’s mother, Agrippina the Younger, wrote up her own memoirs that were cited and used as a source for Caligula by several later historians. - Indeed. Indeed. No, we do not have a plethora of named lost writers, since the plethora mentioned collectively by St Luke is not named and the 50 odd non-canonical Gospels cannot all be assigned to pre-Gospel tries. This is the point I was making : contemporary writers (who as adults saw events) are there for Jesus, namely four of them in continuous narrative (not mentioning all event related scraps in Epistles and Apocalypse which would arguably more than just rival Pliny), while the contemporary writers for continuous narrative about Tiberius (unless you count Velleius Paterculus as giving continuous narrative about him too!), Caligula, Claudius, Nero, even up to Domitian are gone, excepting perhaps what Josephus had to say on some Flavians, which I had overlooked when earlier stating this. They are gone, and their witness survives only second hand, in authors quoting lost authors after Domitian died (again, excepting Josephus, OK).
  
  
• We have several later critical historians writing about Caligula who name, cite and quote eyewitness, documentary, and contemporary sources for Caligula: e.g. besides Suetonius (whose example of this I already discussed), also Tacitus, Life of Agricola 10 (written c. 98 A.D.), and Annals 13.20 (written c. 116 A.D.), and even Dio Cassius (not even two hundred years after the fact). - You are omitting Early Church Fathers quoting Gospels, presumably because the Gospels are not lost.
  
  Also, calling Suetonius, Tacitus and Dio Cassius (guys who wrote after Domitian died, as I mentioned) "critical historians" is somewhat equivocal. If by "critical" you mean they are not uncritical of the Caesars in question, granted (easy to criticise a dead Caesar, except Julius and Augustus, right?). If you mean they are not uncritical of their sources, well, they do not show the modern kind of criticism to them - they are not as critical to Agrippina's life of her son as Carrier is of the Gospels.
  
  
• We even have government documents that do this: for example, we have unearthed a bronze tablet copy (dating c. 168 A.D.) of a letter personally written by Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Journal of Roman Studies 1973.63) that mentions him consulting the extant register of those granted citizenship by Caligula (in a list of such registers from other emperors as well). - Again, this is a type of proof you cannot get for someone not engaged in administration.
  
  
• Oh…and we have Caligula him-fracking-self! An inscription recording his own letter, in his own words, to the Achaean League, dated 19 August 37 A.D. (Inscriptiones Graecae 7.2711, ll. 21-43). - There was also a Letter, not just a miraculous image, to King Abgar.
  
  Oh, Carrier thinks that could be a fake? Well, why not that inscription, if we are tin foilish?
  
  
• We also have declarations of alliance and celebration from many localities at the accession to power of Caligila. For example, the Oath declared by the Aritensians, inscribed on stone shortly after 11 May 37 A.D., elaborately asserting they shall ally with Caligula and declare his enemies their enemies; similarly the Cyzicans as well; and the Oath and Decree of Celebration of the Assians of the same year, which says they are sending an embassy “to seek an audience with and congratulate him, and beg him to remember” their city “as he personally promised when together with his father Germanicus he first set foot in our city’s province” (see Lewis & Reinhold, Vol. 2, § 3 and 9). So here we have the eyewitness, original autograph testimony, of an entire city of people. Caligula was with his father at the age of six when he visited their region (so they are trucking rather hard on the utterance of a toddler). But you don’t say this of, or send embassies to, a guy who doesn’t exist. - Our Lord was probably younger than six when He received an Embassy of a sort which went by Herod to Him, but avoided Herod when returning.

Note, one key point not adressed here is Gospels being genuine, or not adressed in detail.

The point is, Carrier perfectly knew he was not counting them when repeating his refrain, and he was not doing so because he counted them as fakes.

That is another argument, to be answered on more specific grounds pretending that they are such.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris, Porte Dorée
IV Sunday after Pentecost
17.VI.2018

* on (spellcheck or vicinity of touches)

Blooper, Carrier!

Blooper, Carrier! · Carrier's Entire List

So What About Caligula? How Do You Know HE Existed!?
by Richard Carrier /on May 31, 2018/
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14117

Pliny the Elder, an eyewitness to Caligula, supplies us a great deal of information directly from his own observations, and from government records and other eyewitness and contemporary sources. Do we have anything like that for Jesus? No.

Did Carrier say "a great deal"? Richard Carrier links to a Perseus Tuft's search on the word Caligula in author Pliny.

Here are the hits to Naturalis Historia:

• book 4, chapter 5: ... Asia. , Cæsar the Dictator, the prince Caius Caius Caligula, the Emperor. , and Domitius Nero The Emperor Nero
  
  
• book 5, chapter 1: ... which, until the time of Caius Cæsar The Emperor Caligula, who, in the year 41 A.D., reduced the ... to Rome in the year A.D. 40 , by Caligula, and shortly after put to death by him, his
  
  
• book 5, chapter 44: ... , Domitius Corbulo Brother of Cæsonia, the wife of Caligula, and father of Domitia Longina, the wife of Domitian.
  
  
• book 7, chapter 4: ... , who became the wife of the Emperor Caius. Caius Caligula. The name of this woman, who was first his ... was Milonia Cesonia. She was neither handsome nor young when Caligula first admired her: but was noted for her extreme ... and at the time when she first became intimate with Caligula, had already had three children. She and her daughter,
  
  
• book 7, chapter 6: ... of Agrippa and Julia, was the mother of the Emperor Caligula; and of a second Agrippina, who became the mother
  
  
• book 7, chapter 11: ... in the Life of Augustus, c. 63; and that of Caligula, c. 7.—B. Certain individuals, again, both men
  
  
• book 7, chapter 18: ... of Germanicus Cæsar, and the grandmother of the emperor Caligula, whom she lived to see on the throne, and
  
  
• book 7, chapter 44: ... same meaning as our expression, "from the ranks." The Emperor Caligula received that surname when a boy, in consequence of
  
  
• book 8, chapter 64: ... The nephew of Tiberius and the father of the Emperor Caligula.—B. wrote a poem, which still exists. There
  
  
• book 8, chapter 84: ... known. He probably flourished in the reign of Tiberius or Caligula. Cato the Censor, See end of B. iii
  
  
• book 9, chapter 31: ... the reign of Caius, The reign of the Emperor Caligula. at the price of eight thousand sesterces. Juvenal
  
  
• book 9, chapter 33: ... centurions, were distinguished by the name of "caligati." The Emperor Caligula received that cognomen when a boy, in consequence of
  
  
• book 9, chapter 56: ... ii. c. 12, and Pliny, B. xxxvii. c. 6, that Caligula wore gold and pearls upon his socculi. it
  
  
• book 9, chapter 58: ... but was divorced from him, and married to the Emperor Caligula, who, however, soon divorced her. At the instigation of ... the Emperor Nero. the wife of the Emperor Caius Caligula. —it was not at any public festival, or
  
  
• book 9, chapter 81: ... vii. c. 18, and B. xxxv. c. 36. Her grandson, Caligula, is supposed to have hastened her death. the
  
  
• book 12, chapter 5: ... that afforded in the reign of the Emperor Caius. Caligula. That prince was so struck with admiration on ... that he here alludes sarcastically to the extreme corpulence of Caligula. very materially to the shade it threw-the
  
  
• book 16, chapter 76: ... brought from Egypt, by order of the Emperor Caius, Caligula. the obelisk B. xxxvi. c. 14. that
  
  
• book 16, chapter 95: ... but is conjectured to have lived in the reign of Caligula or Tiberius. Cremutius, See end of B. vii
  
  
• book 26, chapter 3: ... say whether Tiberius, the predecessor, or Claudius, the successor of Caligula, is meant; most probably the latter, as the former
  
  
• book 32, chapter 1: ... one of these fish arrested the ship of the Emperor Caligula. Caius in its course, when he was returning ... a trick was played for the purpose of imposing upon Caligula's superstitious credulity, and that the rowers as well
  
  
• book 33, chapter 6: ... and demanded his signet-ring, which his son-in-law, Caligula, had removed from his finger, under the supposition that
  
  
• book 33, chapter 16: ... storeys, which were raised or depressed, to all appearance, spontaneously. Caligula is the emperor meant. introduced into the Circus,
  
  
• book 33, chapter 22: ... substance greatly excited the hopes of the Emperor Caius, Caligula. a prince who was most greedy for gold.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 27: ... 5. From Suetonius, c. 18, we learn that the Emperor Caligula, also, had the Circus sanded with minium and chrysocolla.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 47: ... 63 . Callistus, C. Julius Callistus, the freedman of Caligula, in whose assassination he was an accomplice. The physician
  
  
• book 34, chapter 9: ... is employed by Suetonius, in speaking of a statue of Caligula, c. 22.—B. I do not know whether
  
  
• book 35, chapter 6: ... , though the temple is in ruins. The Emperor Caius, Caligula. inflamed with lustfulness, attempted to have them removed,
  
  
• book 35, chapter 59: ... works were at first proscribed, but were afterwards permitted by Caligula to be read. Fabius Vestalis, See end of
  
  
• book 36, chapter 14: ... one in which, by order of the Emperor Caius, Caligula. the other obelisk had been transported to Rome,
  
  
• book 36, chapter 15: ... is mentioned above as having been removed from Alexandria by Caligula. obelisk This obelisk was transferred by Pope Sextus ... Vaticanus. Circus, which was constructed by the Emperors Caius Caligula. and Nero; this being the only one of
  
  
• book 36, chapter 24: ... City environed by the palaces of the Emperors Caius Caligula. The Palace of Caligula was situate on the Palatine Hill: that of Nero ... which was more recently commenced by the Emperor Caius, Caligula. and completed by Claudius. Under these princes, the
  
  
• book 37, chapter 6: ... . He has rendered, however, comparatively excusable the Emperor Caius, Caligula. who, in addition to other femmine luxuries, used

It looks a bit as if some of theme were from footnotes. Second hit mentions AD dating - not one known to Pliny. Third hit mentions Domitian who started ruling in AD 81 - two years after Pliny died.

The search engine took in hits not only to text by Pliny himself in English translation, but also to annotations made much more recently - by people who have read historians writing after Domitian died, inter alia.

Let's see, I'm checking hit after hit, showing in each case the words of Pliny (or editor other than in footnotes for 5:44?) and saying which of the hits showed words in a footnote:

• book 4, chapter 5: The Peloponnesus, which was formerly called Apia1 and Pelasgia, is a peninsula, inferior in fame to no land upon the face of the earth. ... For this reason it is that both King Demetrius6, Cæsar the Dictator, the prince Caius7, and Domitius Nero8, have at different times made the attempt to cut through this neck by forming a navigable canal; a profane design, as may be clearly seen by the result9 in every one of these instances. - the hit was to footnote 7.
  
  
• book 5, chapter 1: On our entrance into Africa, we find the two Mauritanias, which, until the time of Caius Cæsar3, the son of Germanicus, were kingdoms; but, suffering under his cruelty, they were divided into two provinces. - The hit was to footnote 3. It explained Caligula is our name for Caius Caesar.
  
  
• book 5, chapter 44: Domitius Corbulo - cited as one cited author. Caligula is mentioned in a footnote to his name.
  
  
• book 7, chapter 4: There are great variations in this respect, which occur in numerous ways. Vestilia, for instance, who was the wife of C. Herdicius, and was afterwards married, first, to Pomponius,4 and then to Orfitus, very eminent citizens, after having brought forth four children, always at the seventh month, had Suillius Rufus at the eleventh month, and then Corbulo at the seventh, both of whom became consuls; after which, at the eighth month, she had Cæsonia, who became the wife of the Emperor Caius.5 As for children who are born at the eighth month, the greatest difficulty with them is to get them over the first forty days. - We learn this emperor Caius was Caligula in footnote 5.
  
  
• book 7, chapter 6: It is contrary to nature for children to come into the world with the feet first, for which reason such children are called Agrippæ, meaning that they are born with difficulty.1 In this manner, M. Agrippa2 is said to have been born; the only instance, almost, of good fortune, out of the number of all those who have come into the world under these circumstances. And yet, even he may be considered to have paid the penalty of the unfavourable omen produced by the unnatural mode of his birth, in the unfortunate weakness of his legs, the misfortunes of his youth, a life spent in the very midst of arms and slaughter, and ever exposed to the approaches of death; in his children, too, who have all proved a very curse to the earth, and more especially, the two Agrippinas, who were the mothers respectively of Caius and of Domitius Nero,3 so many firebrands hurled among the human race. - Obviously book 7 is on pregnancy and childbirth, and that Agrippa was born feet first totally explains how the children of his two daughters tunned out as first class monsters, like Caligula and Nero. Note in passing that Pliny was superstitious, since he believed this, and yet Carrier is willing to cite him as a source on history ...
  
  
• book 7, chapter 11: There exists a kind of peculiar antipathy between the bodies of certain persons, which, though barren with respect to each other, are not so when united to others;1 such, for instance, was the case with Augustus and Livia.2 - the footnote 2 tells us from Suetonius that Caligula is alluded to.
  
  
• book 7, chapter 18: Less important peculiarities of nature, again, are to be observed in many persons; Antonia,6 for instance, the wife of Drusus, was never known to expectorate; and Pomponius, the poet, a man of consular rank, was never troubled with eructation. - Footnote 6 tells us, Antonia was granny to Caligula.
  
  
• book 7, chapter 44: Fortune has determined that P. Ventidius alone should enjoy the honour of a triumph over the Parthians, and yet the same individual, when he was a child, she led in the triumphal procession of Cneius Pompeius, the conqueror of Asculum.1 Indeed, Masurius says, that he had been twice led in triumph; and according to Cicero, he used to let out mules for the bakers of the camp.2 Most writers, indeed, admit that his younger days were passed in the greatest poverty, and that he wore the hob-nailed shoes3 of the common soldier. - Pliny is providing info on Ventidius and mentions caligae, and footnote 2 says those gave Caligula his nickname.
  
  
• book 8, chapter 64: The late Emperor Augustus also erected a tomb to his horse; on which occasion Germanicus Cæsar5 wrote a poem, which still exists. - footnote 5 says who Germanicus Caesar was, but Pliny himself doesn't tell us he was father to Caligula
  
  
• book 8, chapter 84: Cornelius Valerianus cited as author, and footnote guesses he flourished under Tiberius or Caligula.
  
  
• book 9, chapter 31: ENORMOUS PRICES OF SOME FISH. Asinius Celer,1 a man of consular rank, and remarkable for his prodigal expenditure on this fish, bought one at Rome, during the reign of Caius,2 at the price of eight thousand sesterces.3 - while footnote 2 explains Caius as Caligula, the actual text of Pliny says more of fish market or of Asinius Celer (perhaps wellnamed) than of Caligula.
  
  
• book 9, chapter 33: Some fishes have numerous gills, others again single1 ones, others double; it is by means of these that they discharge the water that has entered the mouth. A sign of old age2 is the hardness of the scales, which are not alike in all. There are two lakes3 of Italy at the foot of the Alps, called Larius and Verbanus, in which there are to be seen every year, at the rising of the Vergiliæ,4 fish remarkable for the number of their scales, and the exceeding sharpness5 of them, strongly resembling hob-nails6 in appearance; these fish, however, are only to be seen during that month,7 and no longer. - Pliny tells us of fish scales, the annotator explains hob-nails as translation of Clavorum caligarium"—"nails for the caliga." and then goes off a tangent on the etymology of Caligula.
  
  
• book 9, chapter 56: Long pearls also have their peculiar value; those are called "elenchi," which are of a long tapering shape, resembling our alabaster6 boxes in form, and ending in a full bulb.7 Our ladies quite glory in having these suspended from their fingers, or two or three of them dangling from their ears. For the purpose of ministering to these luxurious tastes, there are various names and wearisome refinements which have been devised by profuseness and prodigality; for after inventing these ear-rings, they have given them the name of "crotalia,"8 or castanet pendants, as though quite delighted even with the rattling of the pearls as they knock against each other; and now, at the present day, the poorer classes are even affecting them, as people are in the habit of saying, that "a pearl worn by a woman in public, is as good as a lictor9 walking before her." Nay, even more than this, they put them on their feet, and that, not only on the laces of their sandals, but all over the shoes;10 it is not enough to wear pearls, but they must tread upon them, and walk with them under foot as well. - Annotator at note 10 tells of Caligula. Of his doing much like these ladies. Sources are given as We find from Seneca, De Ben. B. ii. c. 12, and Pliny, B. xxxvii. c. 6. Well, at book 37 we may indeed find sth on Caligula by Pliny ...
  
  
• book 9, chapter 58: I once saw Lollia Paulina,1 the wife of the Emperor Caius2 —it was not at any public festival, or any solemn ceremonial, but only at an ordinary wedding entertainment3—covered with emeralds and pearls, which shone in alternate layers upon her head, in her hair, in her wreaths, in her ears, upon her neck, in her bracelets, and on her fingers, and the value of which amounted in all to forty millions 4 of sesterces; indeed5 she was prepared at once to prove the fact, by showing the receipts and acquittances. - Footnotes 1 and 2 explain the relation between Lollia and her husband Caligula. The rest of the chapter explains a bit on why Lollia had that apparel.
  
  
• book 9, chapter 81: It was at the same villa that Antonia,5 the wife of Drusus, placed earrings upon a murena which she had become fond of; the report of which singular circumstance attracted many visitors to the place. - Footnote 5 explains Antonia was granny of Caligula.
  
  
• book 12, chapter 5: Another curious instance, again, was that afforded in the reign of the Emperor Caius.2 That prince was so struck with admiration on seeing a plane in the territory of Veliternum, which presented floor after floor, like those of the several stories of a house, by means of broad benches loosely laid from branch to branch, that he held a banquet in it-himself adding3 very materially to the shade it threw-the triclinium being formed for the reception of fifteen guests and the necessary attendants: to this singular dining-room he gave the name of his "nest." - Footnote 2 explains Caius was Caligula and 3 that "adding to the shadow substantially" means he was fat. But yes, Pliny does say that Caligula held a banquet in a plane tree (which is what the chapter is about). Carrier, if you think miraculous reports arise quickly after non-miraculous facts, do you think Caligula was, at the time, lean, and not holding a banquet? Excess reports on people not too excessive arise even quicker.
  
  
• book 16, chapter 76: There was a fir, too, that was particularly admired, when it formed the mast of the ship, which brought from Egypt, by order of the Emperor Caius,17 the obelisk18 that was erected in the Vaticanian Circus, with the four blocks of stone intended for its base. It is beyond all doubt that there has been seen nothing on the sea more wonderful than this ship: one hundred and twenty thousand modii of lentils formed its ballast; and the length of it took up the greater part of the left side of the harbour at Ostia. It was sunk at that spot by order of the Emperor Claudius, three moles, each as high as a tower, being built upon it; they were constructed with cement19 which the same vessel had conveyed from Puteoli. It took the arms of four men to span the girth of this tree, and we not unfrequently hear of the price of masts for such purposes, as being eighty thousand sesterces or more: rafts, too, of this wood are sometimes put together, the value of which is forty thousand. - Pliny say Caligula imported sth ... you obviously think all imports by King Solomon prove he existed too? Footnote, as so often, explains Caius means the guy we call Caligula.
  
  
• book 16, chapter 95: Calpurnius Bassus - cited as an author, and note : 17 He is wholly unknown: but is conjectured to have lived in the reign of Caligula or Tiberius.
  
  
• book 26, chapter 3: CHAP. 3.—AT WHAT PERIOD LICHEN FIRST MADE ITS APPEARANCE IN ITALY. This curse was unknown to the ancients,1 and in the times of our fathers even, having first entered Italy in the middle of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius2 Claudius Cæsar; where it was introduced from Asia,3 in which country it had lately made4 its appearance, by a member of the equestrian order at Rome, a native of Perusiun, secretary to the quæstor. The disease, however, did not attack either females or slaves,5 nor yet the lower orders, or, indeed, the middle classes, but only the nobles, being communicated even by the momentary contact requisite for the act of salutation.6 Many of those who persevered in undergoing a course of remedial treatment, though cured of the disease, retained scars upon the body more hideous even than the malady itself; it being treated with cauteries, as it was certain to break out afresh, unless means were adopted for burning it out of the body by cauterizing to the very bone. - Footnote 2 hesitates whether Tiberius Claudius Cæsar means Tiberius or Caligula. See above for probable resolution it being Tiberius. (Footnote 6 is not likely to be taken in a friendly manner in Balkan or Italy ...or France)
  
  
• book 32, chapter 1: In our own time, too, one of these fish [an echenëis] arrested the ship of the Emperor5 Caius in its course, when he was returning from Astura to Antium:6 and thus, as the result proved, did an insignificant fish give presage of great events; for no sooner had the emperor returned to Rome than he was pierced by the weapons of his own soldiers. Nor did this sudden stoppage of the ship long remain a mystery, the cause being perceived upon finding that, out of the whole fleet, the emperor's five-banked galley was the only one that was making no way. The moment this was discovered, some of the sailors plunged into the sea, and, on making search about the ship's sides, they found an echeneïs adhering to the rudder. Upon its being shown to the emperor, he strongly expressed his indignation that such an obstacle as this should have impeded his progress, and have rendered powerless the hearty endeavours of some four hundred men. One thing, too, it is well known, more particularly surprised7 him, how it was possible that the fish, while adhering to the ship, should arrest its progress, and yet should have no such power when brought on board. - Footnote 5 explains it is Caligula who is called Caius and 7 adds a note of scepticism:
  
  

  And well it might surprise him. If there was any foundation at all for the story, there can be little doubt that a trick was played for the purpose of imposing upon Caligula's superstitious credulity, and that the rowers as well as the diving sailors were privy to it.

  
  
  But that is not Pliny's words and yet Pliny did mention Caligula here.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 6: But at the present day, we not only procure dainties which are sure to be pilfered, but hands to pilfer them as well; and so far is it from being sufficient to have the very keys sealed, that the signet-ring is often taken from off the owner's finger while he is overpowered with sleep or lying on his death-bed. - Footnote 39 presumes, by adding a reference to Suetonius, that Pliny alluded to Caligula's and Tiberius' relations.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 16: deserves to be quoted in full:
  
  

  CHAP. 16.—AT WHAT PERIOD SILVER FIRST MADE ITS APPEARANCE UPON THE ARENA AND UPON THE STAGE.
  
  We, too, have done things that posterity may probably look upon as fabulous. Cæsar, who was afterwards dictator, but at that time ædile, was the first person, on the occasion of the funeral games in honour of his father, to employ all the apparatus of the arena1 in silver; and it was on the same occasion that for the first time criminals encountered wild beasts with implements of silver, a practice imitated at the present day in our municipal towns even.
  
  At the games celebrated by C. Antonius the stage was made of2 silver; and the same was the case at those celebrated by L. Muræna. The Emperor Caius had a scaffold3 introduced into the Circus, upon which there were one hundred and twenty-four thousand pounds' weight of silver. His successor Claudius, on the occasion of his triumph over Britain, announced by the inscriptions that among the coronets of gold, there was one weighing seven thousand4 pounds' weight, contributed by Nearer Spain, and another of nine thousand pounds, presented by Gallia Comata.5 Nero, who succeeded him, covered the Theatre of Pompeius with gold for one day,6 the occasion on which he displayed it to Tiridates, king of Armenia. And yet how small was this theatre in comparison with that Golden Palace7 of his, with which he environed our city.

  
  
  Pliny actually gives us Caius being succeeded by Claudius who was succeeded by Nero. And Caius vaguely being preceded (there were two emperors between) by Julius Caesar who had a more modest taste. The context is worthy of the Yellow Press, but I did not think we could get this much history on Caligula from Pliny! Who, by the way, is exspecting the scepticism of the future, not on the list of emperors Caligula, Claudius and Nero, or on Nero being contemporary with Tiridates, but simply on the luxury he was reporting.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 22: Orpiment: There is also one other method of procuring gold; by making it from orpiment,1 a mineral dug from the surface of the earth in Syria, and much used by painters. It is just the colour of gold, but brittle, like mirror-stone,2 in fact. This substance greatly excited the hopes of the Emperor Caius,3 a prince who was most greedy for gold. He accordingly had a large quantity of it melted, and really did obtain some excellent gold;4 but then the proportion was so extremely small, that he found himself a loser thereby. Such was the result of an experiment prompted solely by avarice: and this too, although the price of the orpiment itself was no more than four denarii per pound. Since his time, the experiment has never been repeated.
  
  And a chemist today, knowing from note one that orpiment is Yellow sulphuret of arsenic, will conclude that being greedy for gold is not the same as being wise on detecting it. My greatgrandfather who was journeyman to a goldsmith would not have been such a sucker, nor was he that greedy.
  
  Caligula as alchemist, as Nicolas Flamel "avant le mot" ... is this info or intox? Fact or urban rumour? Well, to get a more overall picture on Caligula we go to Sueton and Tacitus, and so we find it is at least believable. B u t these authors come later than Pliny.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 27: Before now, we have seen, at the spectacles exhibited by the Emperor Nero, the arena of the Circus entirely sanded with chrysocolla, when the prince himself, clad in a dress of the same colour, was about to exhibit as a charioteer.7 - Footnote 7 tells us Caligula had done a similar thing, and we know this from Sueton. In other words, Pliny was not writing on Caligula but on Nero.
  
  
• book 33, chapter 47: And yet, although he was the first to become memorable for his opulence—so pleasant is the task of stigmatizing this insatiate cupidity—we have known of many manumitted slaves, since his time, much more wealthy than he ever was; three for example, all at the same time, in the reign of the Emperor Claudius, Pallas,8 Callistus,9 and Narcissus.10 - In footnote 9, we get to know Callistus was both freedman of Caius and implicated in his assassination. But we do not get this from Pliny.
  
  
• book 34, chapter 9: It was not the custom in former times to give the likeness of individuals, except of such as deserved to be held in lasting remembrance on account of some illustrious deed; in the first instance, for a victory at the sacred games, and more particularly the Olympic Games, where it was the usage for the victors always to have their statues consecrated. And if any one was so fortunate as to obtain the prize there three times, his statue was made with the exact resemblance of every individual limb; from which circumstance they were called "iconicæ."2 I do not know whether the first public statues were not erected by the Athenians, and in honour of Harmodius and Aristogiton, who slew the tyrant;3 an event which took place in the same year in which the kings were expelled from Rome.
  
  Since Harmodius and Aristogeiton and the prize winners at Olympic games were not given honours as in and of themselves gods or demigods, we can safely conclude that icons of saints are not idolatry. However, the footnoter also tells us Sueton tells is that Caligula had an icon made of him self. Selfie-maniacs, take note!
  
  
• book 35, chapter 6: At Lanuvium, too, it is the same, where we see an Atalanta and a Helena, without drapery, close together, and painted by the same artist. They are both of the greatest beauty, the former being evidently the figure of a virgin, and they still remain uninjured, though the temple is in ruins. The Emperor Caius,3 inflamed with lustfulness, attempted to have them removed, but the nature of the plaster would not admit of it.
  
  While the context is an immodest painting, the outcome shows why flat murals may have been preferred over statues in icons of saints at times : less risk for removal and sacrilege - or even destruction, barring that of the whole building. And yes, Pliny says Caligula was a porn junkie and a clumsy one ...
  
  
• book 35, chapter 59: Severus Longulanus - cited author, footnote 13 says he used to be "on the index" (proscribed) but Caligula allowed his works to be read. Same footnote also says a man he accused of poisoning is found in chapter 46 of same book, but I didn't find him.
  
  I did however find this:
  
  

  It has been already12 stated by us, when on the subject of birds, that a single dish cost the tragic actor Æsopus one hundred thousand sesterces; much to the reader's indignation, no doubt; but, by Hercules! Vitellius, when emperor, ordered a dish to be made, which was to cost a million of sesterces, and for the preparation of which a furnace had to be erected out in the fields! luxury having thus arrived at such a pitch of excess as to make earthenware even sell at higher prices than murrhine13 vessels.

  
  
  And then I did find Asprenas, whom Longulanus had apparently accused:
  
  

  It was in reference to this circumstance, that Mucianus, in his second consulship, when pronouncing one of his perorations, reproached the memory of Vitellius with his dishes as broad as the Pomptine Marsh; not less deserving to be execrated than the poisoned dish of Asprenas, which, according to the accusation brought against him by Cassius Severus, caused the death of one hundred and thirty guests.14

  
  
  OK, did you catch the phrase "Vitellius, when emperor,"? Whatever Pliny says of Caligula is at a safe distance, several subsequent emperors have agreed that Caligula is a baddy. But do we know this from Pliny? No, we know it from authors after Domitian died (and possibly from Josephus too a bit earlier).
  
  
• book 36, chapter 14: There are two other obelisks, which were in Cæsar's Temple at Alexandria, near the harbour there, forty-two cubits in height, and originally hewn by order of King Mesphres. But the most difficult enterprise of all, was the carriage of these obelisks by sea to Rome, in vessels which excited the greatest admiration. Indeed, the late Emperor Augustus consecrated the one which brought over the first obelisk, as a lasting memorial of this marvellous undertaking, in the docks at Puteoli; but it was destroyed by fire. As to the one in which, by order of the Emperor Caius,17 the other obelisk had been transported to Rome, after having been preserved for some years and looked upon as the most wonderful construction ever beheld upon the seas, it was brought to Ostia, by order of the late Emperor Claudius; and towers of Puteolan18 earth being first erected upon it, it was sunk for the construction of the harbour which he was making there. And then, besides, there was the necessity of constructing other vessels to carry these obelisks up the Tiber; by which it became practically ascer- tained, that the depth of water in that river is not less than that of the river Nilus.
  
  Obelisk and big tree, here it is told again under obelisk, see above under big tree.
  
  
• book 36, chapter 15: The third4 obelisk5 at Rome is in the Vaticanian6 Circus, which was constructed by the Emperors Caius7 and Nero; this being the only one of them all that has been broken in the carriage.
  
  Same story, now on how the obelisk was used.
  
  
• book 36, chapter 24: But there are still two other mansions by which all these edifices have been eclipsed. Twice have we seen the whole City environed by the palaces of the Emperors Caius9 and Nero; that of the last, that nothing might be wanting to its magnificence, being coated with gold.10 Surely such palaces as these must have been intended for the abode of those who created this mighty empire, and who left the plough or their native hearth to go forth to conquer nations, and to return laden with triumphs! men, in fact, whose very fields even occupied less space than the audience-chambers11 of these palaces.
  
  OK, Pliny says Caligula had a great palace, as had Nero (presumably after him).
  
  
• book 37, chapter 6: But it was this conquest by Pompeius Magnus that first introduced so general a taste for pearls and precious stones; just as the victories, gained by L. Scipio1 and Cneius Manlius,2 had first turned the public attention to chased silver, Attalic tissues, and banquetting-couches decorated with bronze; and the conquests of L. Mummius had brought Corinthian bronzes and pictures into notice. ... But in other respects, how truly befitting the hero was this triumph! To the state, he presented two thousand millions of sesterces; to the legati and quæstors who had exerted themselves in defence of the sea coast, he gave one thousand millions of sesterces; and to each individual soldier, six thousand sesterces. He has rendered, however, comparatively excusable the Emperor Caius,13 who, in addition to other femmine luxuries, used to wear shoes adorned with pearls; as also the Emperor Nero, who used to adorn his sceptres with masks worked in pearls, and had the couches, destined for his pleasures, made of the same costly materials. Nay, we have no longer any right, it would seem, to censure the employment of drinking-cups adorned with precious stones, of various other articles in daily use that are similarly enriched, and of rings that sparkle with gems: for what species of luxury can there be thought of, that was not more innocent in its results than this on the part of Pompeius?
  
  Story of Caligula's shoes adorned in pearls ... again.

I spotted so many "references to" Narnia and Lord of the Rings, I am much convinced of one thing, both Tolkien and C. S. Lewis had read Pliny the Elder while reading Latin. Gollum grasping for a ring (and taking it from the hand of a dying relative) - and finding fish preciousssssssss. Bilbo throwing the shade of a somewhat fat person. Caspian being a seafarer and amazed at some phenomenon. Tarkheenas and Tisrocs in Tashbaan. Elves holding feasts in trees (perhaps also Digory and Polly holding some on the attic), as well as the party tree. Jadis grand father killed his guests, if by burning, we deal with a reference to Ingjald (an Yngling, see Snorre), but if by poison, the inspiration could as well be Pliny. Since C. S. Lewis did not quite show which it was, he could have thought of both. And Tirian grieving for a horselike friend. And Miraz murdering a competent official ... (or two or three) ...

As to education, this again leaves me jealous of that enjoyed by C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien : as they had it not just before World War II, but even before World War I, in which they fought, they had so much more Classics and so much more time to learn languages (for young Jack Lewis : at least after he was given private tutoring as opposed to boarding school), while myself having grown up some decades after World War II have had to deal with so much more Political Correctness about World War II, Italian Fascism, Spanish Fascism, French Revolution in history, less Latin and more conversation skills in modern languages (the latter is a boon, though), several other lessons impregnated by Politically Correct attitudes, precisely as I have also had less time to learn music and composition than had Haydn and Mozart (they learned more on composition and an instrument or two, while I only learned some on composition).

But when it comes to literary references for the existence of Caligula by a contemporary, unless we pick and chose the non-traditional Gospel dates, this is inferior to what Gospels say of Jesus, in substance. Much inferior. If I had the scepticism of Carrier, I could pretend that Pliny is really too late to be a contemporary of Caligula and his wife and incorporated a myth on Caligula, a parody of how an emperor is not supposed to be. (Coins could have some other source and so. Or, just ignore the coins when dealing with Pliny, he is supposed to be an independent witness beside the coins, right?)

This brings us to the references outside Pliny which Carrier enumerates, and I will deal with them next time. Meanwhile, Pliny the Elder, as I have said, is not an historian writing on contemporary current history. Just as I said earlier there was a gap between Velleius Paterculus writing in AD 30 and Tacitus writing again in c. 98 AD.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
First Friday of June
1.VI.2018