Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't know how cool it is to be challenging in what seems to be a negative way on your thread. I didn't mean to come off as negative. I wanted to smack you upside your head. Got pretty close, right?

:-)

I didn't see this as a challenge so much as a good conversation. And stop whumpin me upside the head, I am sensitive.......

You spent TWO YEARS OF YOUR LIFE investigating stuff to answer a question that can NEVER be answered!!!!!

****WHUMP!!!!****

[_Jersey Girl]

I sent you a message so I don't mess up your thread any more. That's how nice I am.

:-D

[_mikwut]

Philo,

I have already begun your challenge on this thread and received no answer from you. I have given the argument that a mythicist history would demonstrate itself in you know history, it would find itself as a heresy and Carrier doesn't have a satisfying answer for this. He likes using the analogy of Roswell developing as myth quickly in our own time but guess what, we have a history for this on both a mythical and non position. We don't with Jesus.

I'll give you another, how in Chapter 6 of On the Historicity of Jesus is a Rank-Ragland Reference Class warranted in light of the early high Christology that recent scholars have demonstrated? Carrier answers none of the Jewishness arguments against his hellenization arguments. Why should I not a priori have Jesus as an exorcist, faith healer, etc... how does Rank-Ragland get such a status particularly in light of the early high divine nature of Jesus? I don't find a satisfying answer in his book.

mikwut

[_Philo Sofee]

Some yoyo dope named Unwin is the most guilty of this horrible misuse of Bayes, and he has been rightly excoriated by Bayesians. Richard Carrier is not guilty of its misuse. James Lindsay is using it like Carrier, as are many others. Lindsay is easily found online and I highly recommend his blog. Here's the link: http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2012/12/d ... oning.html

Actually, I don't think people I'm referring to are misusing Bayes per se. Rather they are translating their poor reasoning into the notation of Bayes then executing the arithmetic. The math is fine. The arguments are not. And to understand the arguments, you have to parse what's being said with lots of math flying around on top of it. I think I can do this, but it does dazzle people.

Agreed entirely! Bayesians don't say this however.

Uh...

Well give me some specifics then. I'm reading Michael Martin, Richard T. Cox, John Earman, Richard Carrier, James Lindsay, and see none of them saying Bayes is the *only* way to go about it. I honestly don't see it.

[_Philo Sofee]

Mikwut:

I have already begun your challenge on this thread and received no answer from you. I have given the argument that a mythicist history would demonstrate itself in you know history, it would find itself as a heresy and Carrier doesn't have a satisfying answer for this. He likes using the analogy of Roswell developing as myth quickly in our own time but guess what, we have a history for this on both a mythical and non position. We don't with Jesus.

Roswell?!? You use his Roswell off the cuff comment and ignore the more substantial Haile Selassie? Come on bubba....... why ignore the obvious King Arthur idea he presents which is even more substantial? Your cherry picking is unconvincing..... And one reason the mythicist version didn't make history is the same reason that the Essenes didn't nor did the Gnostics.... it was the Christians who wrote the history and stamped out everyone else. There were at least 30 various groups and multitudinous theologies in that day that didn't make it. It's a little disengenious to pretend it wasn't the Christians who forged their own history onto the playing field by eliminating all the competition. And heresy is a difficult issue as Carrier noted as well. Assuming something was heresy or orthodox so early is highly dubious in early Christianities.

I'll give you another, how in Chapter 6 of On the Historicity of Jesus is a Rank-Ragland Reference Class warranted in light of the early high Christology that recent scholars have demonstrated? Carrier answers none of the Jewishness arguments against his hellenization arguments. Why should I not a priori have Jesus as an exorcist, faith healer, etc... how does Rank-Ragland get such a status particularly in light of the early high divine nature of Jesus? I don't find a satisfying answer in his book.

You could always ask him to clarify this for you. He's easy to access on the net ya know. WHY does Jesus belong in the Rank-Raglan classification? Uh, because as he (Carrier) so adroitly explained and demonstrated, he has most of the characteristics of that class, along with the other mythical heroes in it. He explicitly detailed this in wonderful analysis I thought. Did you honestly not grasp that? What am I missing here? I thought that was one of the most powerful points of his book actually. I even went and bought "In Quest of the Hero" and read it myself. What it shows of Jesus is anything but a so-called "high Christology." What do you mean by that idea exactly? An early high Christology? How does that do away with the Rank Raglan hero class? Jesus' Jewishness can be one of the factors of intent in a work of fiction exactly as it can in a work of history. The Jewishness doesn't authenticate Jesus all that much. A mythic Jesus could also be Jewish and come from the line of David. And, of course, Carrier discusses this as well. I don't see your point. Sorry to be so dense.

Best,
BYP

[_mikwut]

Hi Philo,

Carrier relies on, to a good extent, old school syncretism. A rather recent new school that includes Margaret Barker, Richard Bauckham, David Capes, Peter Carrell, Timo Eskola, Crispen Fletcher-Louis, Jarl Fossum, R. T. France, Charles Gieschen, William Horbury, Larry Hurtado, Carey Newman, Paul Rainbow, Loren Stuckenbruck, and N. T. Wright convincingly demonstrate that hellenism by and large did not affect predominantly held jewish religious worldviews to the extent necessary for deep syncretism. There in fact existed a strong Jewish resistance to hellenization. Of course there are disagreements among these scholars but strongly bonding them is the idea of Jesus' divine nature developed early and directly from Judaism and not being tainted by the hellenization that carrier needs.

Have you read Dead Certainties by Simon Schama? It has nothing to do with Jesus studies. It demonstrates though the historical folly of not seeing the probabilities that exist in other historical constructions. This is because historical construction is complex and seeing an entire historically constructed edifice can blind the historian to how complex the other edifices are. There is nothing certain, nothing non controversial when constructing history even with more evidence available than Jesus scholarship.

mikwut

[_Philo Sofee]

Mikwut:

Carrier relies on, to a good extent, old school syncretism. A rather recent new school that includes Margaret Barker, Richard Bauckham, David Capes, Peter Carrell, Timo Eskola, Crispen Fletcher-Louis, Jarl Fossum, R. T. France, Charles Gieschen, William Horbury, Larry Hurtado, Carey Newman, Paul Rainbow, Loren Stuckenbruck, and N. T. Wright convincingly demonstrate that hellenism by and large did not affect predominantly held jewish religious worldviews to the extent necessary for deep syncretism. There in fact existed a strong Jewish resistance to hellenization. Of course there are disagreements among these scholars but strongly bonding them is the idea of Jesus' divine nature developed early and directly from Judaism and not being tainted by the hellenization that carrier needs.

I would be interested to see if any probabilities have been calculated and shown if these interpretations are more probably true or more probably false based on the actual background evidence we have. Or are they simply massaging yet more assumptions in order to get something "new" or "ingenious" to keep em getting tenure and being published. It's happened before ya know.....

Have you read Dead Certainties by Simon Schama? It has nothing to do with Jesus studies. It demonstrates though the historical folly of not seeing the probabilities that exist in other historical constructions. This is because historical construction is complex and seeing an entire historically constructed edifice can blind the historian to how complex the other edifices are. There is nothing certain, nothing non controversial when constructing history even with more evidence available than Jesus scholarship.

Nice, but that isn't at issue. We already know history and our interpretations are controversial. The actual issue is the probabilities of claims made about history and people, actions, and ideas in history.

[_Jersey Girl]

delete

[_EAllusion]

Well give me some specifics then. I'm reading Michael Martin, Richard T. Cox, John Earman, Richard Carrier, James Lindsay, and see none of them saying Bayes is the *only* way to go about it. I honestly don't see it.

I was responding to Analytics comment. But to be a Bayesian means to adopt that concept of probability. There absolutely are people who think Bayesian analysis controls all probability judgments of which historical reconstruction is one type.

[_mikwut]

Hi Philo,

I would be interested to see if any probabilities have been calculated and shown if these interpretations are more probably true or more probably false based on the actual background evidence we have. Or are they simply massaging yet more assumptions in order to get something "new" or "ingenious" to keep em getting tenure and being published. It's happened before ya know.....

It is just so implausible for me to accept that agnostic, atheist, jewish and Christian historians from around the world are all independently constructing background evidence and historical frameworks that are motivated somehow to support the anti-mythicist framework rather than just good scholarship being done. I don't think these scholars are thinking about avoiding mythicism at all when doing their work. Isn't it a bit off to think that as long as Jesus is a real historical figure he can be almost anything but the mythicist position deserves the institutional bias? That's something you and Carrier both agree with when you make your arguments that traditional scholarship has failed because there are so many Jesus constructions, which one is true? Bayes to the rescue. How is there so much freedom for the multiplicity of earth bound Jesus' (most of which are not Christian friendly) but when the mythicist Jesus is argued for institutional politics, bias, institutional structure etc.. keep just that one construction, just that dastardly mythicist one out but all else are welcome. Crossan no problem but Carrier - no tenure. C'mon? I just don't buy it and I accept institutional slowing of expanding understanding at the same time.

mikwut