Facts Regarding Jesus

[JoeyKnothead]

From here:

...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

For debate:

Please present verifiable facts regarding "the Historical Jesus" for examination.

[fredonly]

Historical analysis is the development of what probably happened - not what DEFINITELY happened (that's impossible). For each of the pertinent questions, one must ask is this more probable than that.

It's more probable that Jesus existed,as a sole individual, than that he did not exist. Christians didn't pop up out of the blue. Paul of Tarsus wrote of Jesus, and that he had met his brother and some other of Jesus direct disciples.

Are Paul's epistles entirely fiction? It's within the realm of possibility, but this seems unlikely. His epistles were copied, collected, and shared - so they were greatly valued. So valued were they that there were also some Paul forgeries, a tribute to the esteem in which he was held.

Paul also writes of "Judaizing" Christians, who's theology conficted with his, but nevertheless confirm that Paul was not the source of it all.

What can we know about Jesus? That's much more complicated. Paul never knew the man. All we have are the Gospel accounts - and they're problematic. Historical Jesus research attempts to deconstruct the Gospels, removing the theological trappings, conflicting reports, and material that know one could possibly know (e.g. his Paternity). The net result is a small set of assumptions about Jesus that have some reasonable probability of being accurate. Nothing is proven, and no one can say how likely each of the specifics are, but there's at least a good chance that some of the secular things (at least) are true.

[JehovahsWitness]

For debate:

Please present verifiable facts regarding "the Historical Jesus" for examination.

Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist and few serious historians actually doubt that Jesus existed: References to Jesus by Tacitus*(who has been described as the greatest Roman historian), Suetonius¤, Pliny the Younger, and at least one by Flavius Josephus**, are generally accepted as proof of the historical existence of Jesus.

The Encyclopædia Britannica thus concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.�—1974 Edition, Vol. 10, p. 145.

=============================================================

DOCUMENTAL EVIDENCE

Cornelius Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117)*, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.� —The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,� Book 15, par. 44.

** The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.� (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec.9.1).

¤Suetonius: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius—KB] expelled them from the city� (Claudius, 25:4)

Further...

“Early Talmudical accounts� of Jesus confirm ‘both the existence and the general character of Jesus.’ -Jesus of Nazareth, p. 20, Joseph Klausner [Polemic references to Jesus in the Talmud however, are accepted as genuine by certain scholars but not by others].

Further reading
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
online lecture

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/157
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm
http://www.answerbag.com/debates/jesus- ... re_1855544

[cnorman18]

Historical analysis is the development of what probably happened - not what DEFINITELY happened (that's impossible). For each of the pertinent questions, one must ask is this more probable than that.

It's more probable that Jesus existed,as a sole individual, than that he did not exist. Christians didn't pop up out of the blue. Paul of Tarsus wrote of Jesus, and that he had met his brother and some other of Jesus direct disciples.

Are Paul's epistles entirely fiction? It's within the realm of possibility, but this seems unlikely. His epistles were copied, collected, and shared - so they were greatly valued. So valued were they that there were also some Paul forgeries, a tribute to the esteem in which he was held.

Paul also writes of "Judaizing" Christians, who's theology conficted with his, but nevertheless confirm that Paul was not the source of it all.

What can we know about Jesus? That's much more complicated. Paul never knew the man. All we have are the Gospel accounts - and they're problematic. Historical Jesus research attempts to deconstruct the Gospels, removing the theological trappings, conflicting reports, and material that know one could possibly know (e.g. his Paternity). The net result is a small set of assumptions about Jesus that have some reasonable probability of being accurate. Nothing is proven, and no one can say how likely each of the specifics are, but there's at least a good chance that some of the secular things (at least) are true.

That's about as good a brief synopsis of the evidence as I've ever read. I'd add that the Gospel reports of the attitudes and thoughts of the Jews at the time -- specifically, that Jesus was known as a healer, but that his healings could be attributed to sorcery -- are confirmed by the Talmud a generation or so later (which is the import of the Klausner reference in JW's post, following yours; I own that book and have read it). That the Talmud references never even allude to a theory that Jesus, as an ordinary person, never existed remains a significant lapse if there was anything to that theory.

Whether or not Jesus was actually a supernatural healer and miracle worker, never mind whether or not he was God Incarnate or the Son of God, is an entirely separate question from whether or not he ever existed at all as an ordinary mortal man. On THAT question, the consensus among secular historians seems to be that he did. I don't know of a single reputable historian of the present day who seriously contends that he did not. Before all the atheists and nontheists bristle, that, again, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the religious doctrines of Christianity are true or credible.

There actually was a George Washington. There is no evidence at all that he ever chopped down a cherry tree, threw a silver dollar across the Potomac, or was physically assumed into Heaven. One more time; let's not conflate a whole bunch of separate questions into one big one, or go thinking that an answer to one implies answers to the others.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist and few serious historians actually doubt that Jesus existed: References to Jesus by Tacitus*(who has been described as the greatest Roman historian), Suetonius¤, Pliny the Younger, and at least one by Flavius Josephus**, are generally accepted as proof of the historical existence of Jesus.

Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117).

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius (ca. 69/75 – after 130).

Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, born Gaius Caecilius or Gaius Caecilius Cilo (61 AD – ca. 112 AD), better known as Pliny the Younger.

Josephus (37 – c.100 AD/CE)

(Taken From Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia).

Notice that all of the historical sources which you referred to are of individuals who were born AFTER 30 AD, which is when Jesus was supposed to have been executed according to the time frame established by the four Gospels. So none of these individuals had any more direct personal knowledge about the person identified as Jesus than you do. Like you they were reacting to the STORIES about Jesus which were in circulation by the second half of the first century.

Now let me say that I am not PERSONALLY denying that the individual whom has come to be generally known to us today as Jesus was an actual historical person. The real question is whether the details surrounding his life and death which have come down to us should be given equal credibility as probable and true. For example, if we accept the story of the traveling carpenter/teacher as plausible and potentially true, are we also required to accept the story of his resurrection from the dead as potentially true? Because it is ANYTHING but plausible on the face of it, wouldn't you agree?

To that end, maybe you would like to now respond to the message I posted to you in the "Resurrection Contradictions" string;

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=100

which you have yet to respond to.

(In response to the theory or possibility that the body of Jesus had been "stolen" by his followers}

Again, very unlikely indeed. Firstly, Jesus was executed, buried and guarded by Roman soldiers. The notion that because the Christians were given permission to chose the burial place that they simply skipped off on the Friday with the Roman soldiers waving them goodbye and good luck and didn't ensure that body was buried is extremely unlikely. And even if they did, it seems somewhat far fetched that upon request to seal and guard the body (in case it would be stolen) neither the opponents nor the soldiers that would be guarding the tomb had the presence of mind to check that it was in there before they cealed it and set up post to guard it - effectively guarding an empty tomb since the disciples hadn't put the body there in the first place on the Friday.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:

Have you ever actually READ the Gospels? You might want to try actually reading all four of them sometime. The first thing you might notice is that only Gospel Matthew mentions a guard placed at the tomb, which is very odd given how significant such a feature is to the overall story. But Gospels Mark, Luke and John make no mention of any such guard. Didn't they know about the guard? Gospel Luke contains portions of the text of Gospel Matthew, but NOT the bit about the guards. Did the authors of Mark, Luke, and John all find the story of the guard at the tomb too insignificant to bother mentioning? That is particularly hard to explain, given just how significant that particular claim is. Also, you might notice that even Gospel Matthew says NOTHING about a Roman guard at the tomb.

"Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can." (Matt.27:65) "YOU have a watch" he tells them; "go ahead and make it as secure as you can." Pilate gives the priests permission to USE THEIR OWN MEN. Members of the Temple Guard. We can see this perfectly well in the next verse. "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." (Matt.27:66). The priests SET THE WATCH. In other words, they set a contingent of their own men. Not one word about Roman guards.

And even if they did, it seems somewhat far fetched that upon request to seal and guard the body (in case it would be stolen) neither the opponents nor the soldiers that would be guarding the tomb had the presence of mind to check that it was in there before they cealed it and set up post to guard it - effectively guarding an empty tomb since the disciples hadn't put the body there in the first place on the Friday.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:

Clearly the priests did have a pressing reason to want to check inside the tomb to see if the body was actually there. And they probably would have done so, IF IT HAD NOT BEEN PASSOVER AND THE SABBATH. The priests were prevented by Jewish law from exposing a body on a high holy day. "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,." When did the priests go to Pilate to asked for a guard? Sometime on Saturday, the day AFTER Jesus was executed which was the Sabbath and also happened to be Passover that year. And since the priests were unable to open and inspect the tomb for the body of Jesus, they did the next most logical thing. They sealed the tomb and set a guard until they were able to return and inspect it. They didn't somehow cement it closed in an attempt to prevent entry as you are implying; They placed seals on the great stone covering the tomb. Cords secured with sealing wax or clay with an official seal embossed on it. And when would have been the earliest and most discreet opportunity to open and search the tomb without violating the law? SOME TIME IN THE DARK EARLY HOURS OF SUNDAY MORNING!

Jesus was placed in the tomb late Friday afternoon and the body was gone by Sunday morning, the window of opportunity was far to small. Also, how far would his followers have got, carrying a body on the sabbath through the city streets. Work and movement was restricted (this happened to be a "Great Sabbath") so dragging a body or a loaded carriage pulled by a mule or ox would have been more than noticable.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:

Noticed by WHO? The city was teaming with pilgrims for the observance of the holy day. A million people, according Josephus, although that is undoubtedly a vast overestimation. Still, who would notice one more donkey or ox cart in such confusion? Also notice this: "And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:39-40). Heavily wrapped and with 100 pounds of aromatic herbs and ointments to hide the smell of decay, the body had been well prepared as if for a journey on that FRIDAY. Next notice this: "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand. (John 19:41-42). Joseph's brand new and expensive family tomb was never intended to be the final resting place of Jesus. The tomb happened to be conveniently close by and served as a handy private place to prepare the body.

The Gospels even give us a general clue as to what may well have became of the body of Jesus. Where would be the most obvious place to take a body for it's final interment? HOME, obviously. Which in Jesus' case was Galilee. And where do the apostles journey immediately following Jesus' execution? "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." (Matt. 28:16). THEY WENT TO GALILEE!

The body of Jesus was delivered over to his disciples directly from the cross on Friday afternoon. No one but his disciples ever saw the body of Jesus again. The priests placed a guard at the closed tomb sometime Saturday, but the body was already gone. How do I know? BECAUSE THE TOMB WAS DISCOVERED TO BE EMPTY SUNDAY MORNING!! THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF A MISSING CORPSE IS THAT IT WAS THE RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE LIVING, AND NOT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CORPSE.

If you are unable to defend the distinct possibility that the entire story of the risen Jesus was nothing more than a contrivance of his followers and NOT a clear and unambiguous supernatural "Act of God," then how or why should you bother to advance or defend your beliefs at all!

[JehovahsWitness]

Notice that all of the historical sources which you referred to are of individuals who were born AFTER 30 AD, which is when Jesus was supposed to have been executed according to the time frame established by the four Gospels. So none of these individuals had any more direct personal knowledge about the person identified as Jesus than you do.

HISTORICAL METHOD

Historical method* does not require that the document be written either by a personal eyeswitness of events or even be "contemporaries" of the subject - if this was the case we would be forced to reject most of what we accept as ancient history today. While of course reliable eyewitness testimony gives added weight to an account, the accepted criteria is that first source be deemed, as Historian David Hackett Fischer puts it “the best relevant evidence.�

The *requirement* that all first sources be written by personal acquaintences of the subject is something no serious scholar finds anything short of ridiculous; this is simply not the criteria by which ancient historical (or even present day) narratives are assessed. Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

• â—† “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.â€� -- Historian, William Durant
  
  ◆ “The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers.� -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand demanding "evidence" to the exclusion of an assessement of the content and perceived integrity of the writers and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

Furthermore, to insist ONLY personal eyewitness accounts be accepted and at the same time, reject the eyewitness accounts of the gospels on the basis of the theology of the writer is contradictory and illogical.The late Frederick F. Bruce, University of Manchester, England, stated:

• ◆“It is not usually possible to demonstrate by historical arguments the truth of every detail in an ancient writing, whether inside or outside the Bible. It is sufficient to have reasonable confidence in a writer’s general trustworthiness; if that is established, there is an a priori likelihood that his details are true. . . . The New Testament is not less likely to be historically reliable because Christians receive it as ‘sacred’ literature.â€�

*Accepted Historical Method

NOTE: You might like to check with a moderator regarding importing other threads to a given topic directed at a particular poster. I think if this is forum policy it might make for quite confusing threads but that is not for me to say. Please note: I respond to threads if and when I see fit to do so which, unless I misunderstand the way public forums work, may well be never.

[d.thomas]

Notice that all of the historical sources which you referred to are of individuals who were born AFTER 30 AD, which is when Jesus was supposed to have been executed according to the time frame established by the four Gospels. So none of these individuals had any more direct personal knowledge about the person identified as Jesus than you do.

HISTORICAL METHOD

Historical method* does not require that the document be written either by a personal eyeswitness of events or even be "contemporaries" of the subject - if this was the case we would be forced to reject most of what we accept as ancient history today.

Or, maybe we should be rejecting most of what we accept as ancient history today. Obviously it also depends on to what extent an individual accepts as ancient history. Case in point, the gospels being accepted as actual accounts of historical events may just be for the gullible to accept of which there is no shortage.

While of course reliable eyewitness testimony gives added weight to an account, the accepted criteria is that first source be deemed, as Historian David Hackett Fischer puts it “the best relevant evidence.�

The *requirement* that all first sources be written by personal acquaintences of the subject is something no serious scholar finds anything short of ridiculous; this is simply not the criteria by which ancient historical (or even present day) narratives are assessed. Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:

• â—† “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.â€� -- Historian, William Durant
  
  ◆ “The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy.

Why? What sources did these biographers use? What can be verified by artifacts and other means? Obviously their biographies would have to be scrutinized like any other before merely accepting everything wholesale.

Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers.� -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg[/list]So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand demanding "evidence" to the exclusion of an assessement of the content and perceived integrity of the writers and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

This is BS. We don't even know who wrote the gospels, and no one is rejecting the gospels as historical accounts "out of hand," the gospels have been assessed to death for centuries now more than any other work of literature so obviously this Blomberg character has been living in a cave. The fact remains that the more the gospels are dissected the less clear a so called historical Jesus becomes, that alone should tell us something.

Furthermore, to insist ONLY personal eyewitness accounts be accepted and at the same time, reject the eyewitness accounts of the gospels on the basis of the theology of the writer is contradictory and illogical.The late Frederick F. Bruce, University of Manchester, England, stated:

• ◆“It is not usually possible to demonstrate by historical arguments the truth of every detail in an ancient writing, whether inside or outside the Bible. It is sufficient to have reasonable confidence in a writer’s general trustworthiness; if that is established, there is an a priori likelihood that his details are true. . . . The New Testament is not less likely to be historically reliable because Christians receive it as ‘sacred’ literature.â€�

"Eyewitnesses of the gospels?" What eye witnesses? What a lot of crap. The gospel are less likely to be historically reliable because the writers were more than likely writing works of theology for theological/political purposes. Who are these historians that can't tell a religious text from an historical account?

[100%atheist]

From here:

...However, there are facts that we know about the Historical Jesus...

For debate:

Please present verifiable facts regarding "the Historical Jesus" for examination.

As far as I understand historicity, it should satisfy a view conditions:
1) multiple independent sources
2) authentic non-anonymous sources
3) contemporary sources
4) information should not contradict other known facts about the geography and people living in the described time and place.

I think that the description of Jesus fails on all 4 of theses points. So Jesus is a non-historical personage. It does not prove though that Jesus did not exist, but we can be pretty certain there is no historical evidence for his existence.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The *requirement* that all first sources be written by personal acquaintences of the subject is something no serious scholar finds anything short of ridiculous; this is simply not the criteria by which ancient historical (or even present day) narratives are assessed. Indeed there does seem to be a double standard when dealing with scripture:
? “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.� -- Historian, William Durant

? “The two earliest biographers of Alexander the Great, for example, Arrian and Plutarch, wrote more than four hundred years after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians generally consider them to be trustworthy. Fabulous legends about the life of Alexander did develop over time, but for the most part only during the several centuries after these two writers.� -- Professor Craig L. Blomberg

So those that reject the bible narrative out of hand demanding "evidence" to the exclusion of an assessement of the content and perceived integrity of the writers and make unreaslistic demands for collaborative material regardless of the nature of the event and culture of the people being written about are by the same criteria rejecting much of ancient history.

Furthermore, to insist ONLY personal eyewitness accounts be accepted and at the same time, reject the eyewitness accounts of the gospels on the basis of the theology of the writer is contradictory and illogical.The late Frederick F. Bruce, University of Manchester, England, stated:

?“It is not usually possible to demonstrate by historical arguments the truth of every detail in an ancient writing, whether inside or outside the Bible. It is sufficient to have reasonable confidence in a writer’s general trustworthiness; if that is established, there is an a priori likelihood that his details are true. . . . The New Testament is not less likely to be historically reliable because Christians receive it as ‘sacred’ literature.�

Alexander the Great wasn't reported to have been killed in battle, only to be resurrected from the dead 30 feet tall with the ability to breathe fire either, was he! Achilles was supposed to have been invulnerable, all but his heel, as a result of having been dipped into the river Styx as an infant. Find a single historian who considers this to be a fact of history. In fact, name a single event, widely and generally considered to be acknowledged history, which is predicated on a supernatural occurrence.

Will Grant also had this to say about Christianity in General by the way:

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shinning in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (History of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595).

If you are unable to dispel the overwhelming likelihood that the story of the empty tomb and the rumor of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead are anything other than actions taken by the living, his followers in this case, rather than actions taken by the corpse, then how can you possibly hope to be taken seriously in any other argument you make concerning the truth of your personal Christian beliefs?

[Goat]

That's about as good a brief synopsis of the evidence as I've ever read. I'd add that the Gospel reports of the attitudes and thoughts of the Jews at the time -- specifically, that Jesus was known as a healer, but that his healings could be attributed to sorcery -- are confirmed by the Talmud a generation or so later (which is the import of the Klausner reference in JW's post, following yours; I own that book and have read it). That the Talmud references never even allude to a theory that Jesus, as an ordinary person, never existed remains a significant lapse if there was anything to that theory.

To be a bit more precise, the Talmud that mentions Jesus is the Bablyonian Talmud, which was started to be written down in 220 C.E (the misnah portion at least), which
is well past ' a generation or so later'. ... it is more like 150+ years after Paul's letters, and 100 years after the last of the Gospels were probably written down by.

[cnorman18]

That's about as good a brief synopsis of the evidence as I've ever read. I'd add that the Gospel reports of the attitudes and thoughts of the Jews at the time -- specifically, that Jesus was known as a healer, but that his healings could be attributed to sorcery -- are confirmed by the Talmud a generation or so later (which is the import of the Klausner reference in JW's post, following yours; I own that book and have read it). That the Talmud references never even allude to a theory that Jesus, as an ordinary person, never existed remains a significant lapse if there was anything to that theory.

To be a bit more precise, the Talmud that mentions Jesus is the Bablyonian Talmud, which was started to be written down in 220 C.E (the misnah portion at least), which
is well past ' a generation or so later'. ... it is more like 150+ years after Paul's letters, and 100 years after the last of the Gospels were probably written down by.

Okay: but as you you know, the Mishnah was assembled from oral traditions that had been passed down from times long before Jesus, aka the "Oral Torah." Given that, and the enormous length of the Talmud and the exhaustiveness of its discussions, it seems to me that the total absence of any tradition that there was never such a person as Jesus at all is still worth noting. To my knowledge, that theory first appeared among non-Jewish scholars no earlier than the late 19th or early 20th century. Among Jewish scholars, I don't think it's ever appeared at all.

Not that it matters much to us Jews anyway, but I just don't think the idea that no such person ever existed is nearly as reasonable as the much more simple explanation that he probably did. Occam and all that.