Hello everyone. It has been awhile, I have been busy with a move and just life in general, but I hope to start re-engaging with the site shortly. I have a few items that I need to follow up on and a few fresh investigations, but in the meantime, I just thought I’d share this conversation I had with ChatGPT. If you’re unfamiliar, it’s a neat resource that seems to be basically a wikibot combined with some knowledge of rhetoric and obfuscation… in other words, essentially a college graduate. However, ultimately it is a bit more honest than the average historian and although I think most of us are aware of what the bot eventually concedes, i enjoyed that I was able to get it out of it without too much beating around the bush.
Banta: Is Jesus a historical or mythological figure?
A.I.: The question of whether Jesus of Nazareth is a historical or mythological figure is a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, historians, and theologians.
Most historical scholars and theologians believe that Jesus was a real historical person. There is a large body of historical evidence, such as texts from the 1st century AD and early Christian writings, which suggests that Jesus was a real person who lived in the 1st century AD in the Roman province of Judea.
However, there are also some scholars who argue that Jesus is a mythological figure. They argue that the accounts of Jesus' life, teachings, and miracles are largely based on legends and myths that developed after his death, and that there is little or no historical evidence to support the idea that Jesus was a real person.
It's worth noting that the question of the historical existence of Jesus is a complex one, and it's important to consider the evidence from various perspectives, including the historical, religious, and literary. The majority of scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure and that the New Testament accounts of his life, teachings, and crucifixion are based on historical events.
Banta: Is Julius Caesar a historical or mythological figure?
A.I.: Julius Caesar is a historical figure. He was a Roman general and statesman who lived from 100 BC to 44 BC. He played a critical role in the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. He was a member of the First Triumvirate and as a military commander he led several successful campaigns in Gaul, Egypt and other parts of the Roman Empire. He was also a talented orator and writer, who left behind several written works, including "Commentaries on the Gallic War" that give us a glimpse of the military campaigns he led.
He is also known for his role in the Civil War between his supporters and the Optimates, a powerful faction of the Roman Senate, and his political reforms, which included the creation of the Julian calendar, and the establishment of the Roman Republic as a dictatorship.
His death marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. He was assassinated on the Ides of March (March 15th) of 44 BC, by a group of senators who were unhappy with his increasing power and his disregard of the Roman Senate's authority.
Caesar's life and deeds have been extensively studied by historians, and his impact on the ancient world, as well as the modern world, is widely acknowledged. He is considered as one of the most important figures in Roman history.
Banta: How do we know that Julius Caesar is a historical figure and yet there is debate on the historical reality of Jesus Christ?
A.I.: The historical existence of Julius Caesar is well-established based on a wide range of historical sources. There are many primary sources, such as his own written works and the works of other contemporary authors, as well as numerous secondary sources, such as the works of later historians, that attest to his life and deeds. Additionally, there is also archaeological evidence, such as inscriptions and coins, that support the historical existence of Julius Caesar.
The historical existence of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is a more complex and debated topic among scholars, historians, and theologians. While there is a large body of historical evidence, such as texts from the 1st century AD and early Christian writings, which suggests that Jesus was a real person who lived in the 1st century AD in the Roman province of Judea, there are also some scholars who argue that Jesus is a mythological figure. They point out that the historical evidence for Jesus is limited, and that the accounts of his life, teachings, and miracles are largely based on legends and myths that developed after his death.
It's important to note that the question of the historical existence of Jesus is a complex one and it's important to consider the evidence from various perspectives, including the historical, religious, and literary. The majority of scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, but the debate on this topic is ongoing, and new discoveries and research may provide new insights into the historical reality of Jesus Christ.
Banta: You mentioned primary sources for Julius Caesar. Does that mean that we have original transcripts from the 1st century BC or copies of documents from later centuries?
A.I.: Yes, for Julius Caesar, we have a variety of primary sources that have been passed down to us from the 1st century BC and some of them are original transcripts, while others are copies of documents from later centuries.
Some of the most notable primary sources for Julius Caesar are his own writings, such as "Commentaries on the Gallic War" and "Civil War", which provide first-hand accounts of his military campaigns and political activities. These texts were written by Caesar himself during the time he lived.
There are also other contemporary authors such as Sallust, Cicero, and Appian, who wrote about Caesar and the events of his time, which provide additional perspectives and information on his life and deeds. These texts were written in the 1st century BC and they provide valuable insights into the historical reality of Julius Caesar.
In addition to these written sources, there are also other forms of primary sources such as inscriptions and coins, which provide additional evidence for the historical existence of Julius Caesar and the events of his time.
It's worth noting that some of the primary sources of Julius Caesar have been lost over time, and the copies that have been passed down to us are from later centuries, but they are still considered as primary sources as they are copies of the originals.
Banta: That seems confusing. Are you saying that we have documents that are literally written by Caesar in his own handwriting?
A.I.: No, I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. The texts written by Julius Caesar that have been passed down to us, such as "Commentaries on the Gallic War" and "Civil War" were not written by him in his own handwriting, but were dictated by him and recorded by scribes, or possibly written by him and then copied by scribes. These texts were written during the time he lived, and they provide first-hand accounts of his military campaigns and political activities.
It's also worth noting that many ancient texts, including those written by Julius Caesar, have not survived to the present day and the copies that have been passed down to us are from later centuries. However, these copies are considered as primary sources as they are based on the original texts written by Caesar himself.
The same applies to other contemporary authors such as Sallust, Cicero, and Appian, who wrote about Caesar and the events of his time, which provide additional perspectives and information on his life and deeds. These texts were written in the 1st century BC and they provide valuable insights into the historical reality of Julius Caesar.
Banta: So we have a literal document which the paper it is written on is dated to the 1st century BC?
No, unfortunately, we do not have any original texts written by Julius Caesar or contemporary authors that date back to the 1st century BC. The texts that have been passed down to us are copies, made in later centuries, of the original documents that date back to the 1st century BC.
It's important to note that many ancient texts, including those written by Julius Caesar, have not survived to the present day due to the fragility of the materials on which they were written, such as papyrus or parchment, and the passage of time. Additionally, many texts were lost or destroyed over the centuries due to natural disasters, wars, and other factors.
Despite the fact that we do not have the original document, the copies that have been passed down to us are still considered primary sources because they are based on the original texts written by Caesar himself or contemporary authors, and they provide valuable insights into the historical reality of Julius Caesar and the events of his time.
Again, the point here isn’t to inform us that we don’t have original copies of documents from 2,000 years ago (I would hope that would be obvious to anyone that thinks on the issue for more than a moment), but how our conventional history is constructed and conveyed in such a way to heavily imply that we do! The AI was happy to conflate “primary sources” with “originals” until I asked specifically about the piece of paper being dated to the 1st century BC. Even asking if it was Caesar’s own handwriting allowed it to try to further blur the line between copies and originals, even while conceding that it wasn’t technically his handwriting.
Banta: Is Jesus a historical or mythological figure?
A.I.: The question of whether Jesus of Nazareth is a historical or mythological figure is a matter of ongoing debate among scholars, historians, and theologians.
Most historical scholars and theologians believe that Jesus was a real historical person. There is a large body of historical evidence, such as texts from the 1st century AD and early Christian writings, which suggests that Jesus was a real person who lived in the 1st century AD in the Roman province of Judea.
However, there are also some scholars who argue that Jesus is a mythological figure. They argue that the accounts of Jesus' life, teachings, and miracles are largely based on legends and myths that developed after his death, and that there is little or no historical evidence to support the idea that Jesus was a real person.
It's worth noting that the question of the historical existence of Jesus is a complex one, and it's important to consider the evidence from various perspectives, including the historical, religious, and literary. The majority of scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure and that the New Testament accounts of his life, teachings, and crucifixion are based on historical events.
Banta: Is Julius Caesar a historical or mythological figure?
A.I.: Julius Caesar is a historical figure. He was a Roman general and statesman who lived from 100 BC to 44 BC. He played a critical role in the end of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. He was a member of the First Triumvirate and as a military commander he led several successful campaigns in Gaul, Egypt and other parts of the Roman Empire. He was also a talented orator and writer, who left behind several written works, including "Commentaries on the Gallic War" that give us a glimpse of the military campaigns he led.
He is also known for his role in the Civil War between his supporters and the Optimates, a powerful faction of the Roman Senate, and his political reforms, which included the creation of the Julian calendar, and the establishment of the Roman Republic as a dictatorship.
His death marked the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. He was assassinated on the Ides of March (March 15th) of 44 BC, by a group of senators who were unhappy with his increasing power and his disregard of the Roman Senate's authority.
Caesar's life and deeds have been extensively studied by historians, and his impact on the ancient world, as well as the modern world, is widely acknowledged. He is considered as one of the most important figures in Roman history.
Banta: How do we know that Julius Caesar is a historical figure and yet there is debate on the historical reality of Jesus Christ?
A.I.: The historical existence of Julius Caesar is well-established based on a wide range of historical sources. There are many primary sources, such as his own written works and the works of other contemporary authors, as well as numerous secondary sources, such as the works of later historians, that attest to his life and deeds. Additionally, there is also archaeological evidence, such as inscriptions and coins, that support the historical existence of Julius Caesar.
The historical existence of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is a more complex and debated topic among scholars, historians, and theologians. While there is a large body of historical evidence, such as texts from the 1st century AD and early Christian writings, which suggests that Jesus was a real person who lived in the 1st century AD in the Roman province of Judea, there are also some scholars who argue that Jesus is a mythological figure. They point out that the historical evidence for Jesus is limited, and that the accounts of his life, teachings, and miracles are largely based on legends and myths that developed after his death.
It's important to note that the question of the historical existence of Jesus is a complex one and it's important to consider the evidence from various perspectives, including the historical, religious, and literary. The majority of scholars in the field of historical Jesus studies believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure, but the debate on this topic is ongoing, and new discoveries and research may provide new insights into the historical reality of Jesus Christ.
Banta: You mentioned primary sources for Julius Caesar. Does that mean that we have original transcripts from the 1st century BC or copies of documents from later centuries?
A.I.: Yes, for Julius Caesar, we have a variety of primary sources that have been passed down to us from the 1st century BC and some of them are original transcripts, while others are copies of documents from later centuries.
Some of the most notable primary sources for Julius Caesar are his own writings, such as "Commentaries on the Gallic War" and "Civil War", which provide first-hand accounts of his military campaigns and political activities. These texts were written by Caesar himself during the time he lived.
There are also other contemporary authors such as Sallust, Cicero, and Appian, who wrote about Caesar and the events of his time, which provide additional perspectives and information on his life and deeds. These texts were written in the 1st century BC and they provide valuable insights into the historical reality of Julius Caesar.
In addition to these written sources, there are also other forms of primary sources such as inscriptions and coins, which provide additional evidence for the historical existence of Julius Caesar and the events of his time.
It's worth noting that some of the primary sources of Julius Caesar have been lost over time, and the copies that have been passed down to us are from later centuries, but they are still considered as primary sources as they are copies of the originals.
Banta: That seems confusing. Are you saying that we have documents that are literally written by Caesar in his own handwriting?
A.I.: No, I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous response. The texts written by Julius Caesar that have been passed down to us, such as "Commentaries on the Gallic War" and "Civil War" were not written by him in his own handwriting, but were dictated by him and recorded by scribes, or possibly written by him and then copied by scribes. These texts were written during the time he lived, and they provide first-hand accounts of his military campaigns and political activities.
It's also worth noting that many ancient texts, including those written by Julius Caesar, have not survived to the present day and the copies that have been passed down to us are from later centuries. However, these copies are considered as primary sources as they are based on the original texts written by Caesar himself.
The same applies to other contemporary authors such as Sallust, Cicero, and Appian, who wrote about Caesar and the events of his time, which provide additional perspectives and information on his life and deeds. These texts were written in the 1st century BC and they provide valuable insights into the historical reality of Julius Caesar.
Banta: So we have a literal document which the paper it is written on is dated to the 1st century BC?
No, unfortunately, we do not have any original texts written by Julius Caesar or contemporary authors that date back to the 1st century BC. The texts that have been passed down to us are copies, made in later centuries, of the original documents that date back to the 1st century BC.
It's important to note that many ancient texts, including those written by Julius Caesar, have not survived to the present day due to the fragility of the materials on which they were written, such as papyrus or parchment, and the passage of time. Additionally, many texts were lost or destroyed over the centuries due to natural disasters, wars, and other factors.
Despite the fact that we do not have the original document, the copies that have been passed down to us are still considered primary sources because they are based on the original texts written by Caesar himself or contemporary authors, and they provide valuable insights into the historical reality of Julius Caesar and the events of his time.
Again, the point here isn’t to inform us that we don’t have original copies of documents from 2,000 years ago (I would hope that would be obvious to anyone that thinks on the issue for more than a moment), but how our conventional history is constructed and conveyed in such a way to heavily imply that we do! The AI was happy to conflate “primary sources” with “originals” until I asked specifically about the piece of paper being dated to the 1st century BC. Even asking if it was Caesar’s own handwriting allowed it to try to further blur the line between copies and originals, even while conceding that it wasn’t technically his handwriting.
