mountainman

I was not being evasive.
I am not a mind reader.



My definiton of "proven" and "not proven" can be exemplified in Carrier's article entitled The Resurrection and the Rubicon Analogy. Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon can be to a great extent "proven" from the evidence, whereas the resurrection cannot be to a great extent so "proven". This does not mean it is certain that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

I have elsewhere argued that the term "historicity" can be represented by a percentage. If an authenticity of an event, or a coin for example, can be "proven" then its historicity value will be rated at close to 100%. Nothing can be "proven" in ancient history to an absolute certainty - i.e. 100%. As far as I see it ancient history deals in probabilities and likelihoods.

Doug Shaver

You didn't have to read my mind. All you had to read was what I wrote, in which there was no mention of context.