Is Mormonism so bad?

[Philo Sofee]

The following passage is taken from the Acts of Paul and Thecla, an apocryphal work of the second century CE:

14 And Demas and Hermogenes said: Bring him before Castelius the governor as one that persuadeth the multitudes with the new doctrine of the Christians; and so will he destroy him and thou shalt have thy wife Thecla. And we will teach thee of that resurrection which he asserteth, that it is already come to pass in the children which we have, and we rise again when we have come to the knowledge of the true God.

15 But when Thamyris heard this of them, he was filled with envy and wrath, and rose up early and went to the house of Onesiphorus with the rulers and officers and a great crowd with staves, saying unto Paul: Thou hast destroyed the city of the Iconians and her that was espoused unto me, so that she will not have me: let us go unto Castelius the governor. And all the multitude said: Away with the wizard, for he hath corrupted all our wives. And the multitude rose up together against him.

16 And Thamyris, standing before the judgement seat, cried aloud and said: 0 proconsul, this is the man-we know not whence he is-who alloweth not maidens to marry: let him declare before thee wherefore he teacheth such things. And Demas and Hermogenes said to Thamyris: Say thou that he is a Christian, and so wilt thou destroy him. But the governor kept his mind steadfast and called Paul, saying unto him: Who art thou, and what teachest thou? for it is no light accusation that these bring against thee.

17 And Paul lifted up his voice and said: If I am this day examined what I teach, hearken, 0 proconsul. The living God, the God of vengeance, the jealous God, the God that hath need of nothing, but desireth the salvation of men, hath sent me, that I may sever them from corruption and uncleanness and all pleasure and death, that they may sin no more. Wherefore God hath sent his own Child, whom I preach and teach that men should have hope in him who alone hath had compassion upon the world that was in error; that men may no more be under judgement but have faith and the fear of God and the knowledge of sobriety and the love of truth. If then I teach the things that have been revealed unto me of God, what wrong do I O proconsul? And the governor having heard that, commanded Paul to be bound and taken away to prison until he should have leisure to hear him more carefully.

Castelius, the governor of Galatia in this text, is otherwise unknown, and he is probably made up. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. We have in this text a story about Paul, a person about whom we know precious little outside of a few letters he wrote, and that story seems to be largely fictional. The author does not bother to research who the governors of Galatia were in the first century CE. He just makes one up.

This is actually a decently strong example to me actually Kish. Good example of showing what actual made up looks like compared to what we have considered history (more or less, with all the accretions, of course) of the Gospels and Paul's letters. This entire discussion is so fascinating because several years ago I was so enamored of Carrier's Bayes Theorem, but through the years, it seems to have lost steam.

[dastardly stem]

How is Pilate just as likely to show up in Mark whether Jesus existed or not?

If he did exist then there’s an obvious strong reason why an obscure local official gets attached to the story in accurate detail: Pilate was part of the oral story from the beginning when it was being told among local contemporaries for whom Pilate wasn’t obscure.

If Jesus didn’t exist then Pilate is picked at random, and somebody goes to the trouble of researching some details about him, even though nobody in the audience is going to have a clue who Pilate was, just to hoodwink any skeptical historians who might try to bust our hoax, because all it’s going to take to pull off a hoax about a resurrection is tossing in a random and obscure but accurate name?

Are those really equally improbable scenarios?

I see it in very simple terms. If we grant Pilate lived, was a miserable governor who persecuted and killed Jews, then he did so whether Jesus lived or not. Now that he gets mentioned in the Jesus story, whether Jesus lived or not may only show he was known among first century jews because he was a miserable governor who persecuted and killed jews. That news could have been disseminated whether Jesus really lived or not. On this line of reasoning, whether pilate lived and is mentioned is not in any way relevant to whether Jesus lived. His mention then leaves the chance of Jesus living at 50/50. His inclusion in the story is therefore not counted as evidence for Jesus having lived.

[huckelberry]

Yea, but you have no real reason to think that Jesus did not live.

[Manetho]

What is Carrier's hypothesis about why the mythical Jesus came to be located in the time and place that he was? Why did the believers in this heavenly being turn him into a human?

The conventional non-Christian explanation for Jesus' semidivine status is that he was a human whose followers were devoted enough to deny he was dead and to expect that he would return someday. That's not a wild hypothesis, given that similar beliefs have emerged about other very real people with devoted followings, from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Mahdi to Haile Selassie to Menachem Mendel Schneerson (and even Elvis Presley). Similarly, people in the ancient Mediterranean world deified human beings pretty frequently. Jews may not have done so, but by the end of the first century, when we see the Gospel of John make the first unambiguous declaration that Jesus was God, most — or at least an awful lot of — Christians were of non-Jewish origin. So the conventional explanation is based on phenomena that have actually been observed in better-documented cases.

The Jesus myth theory, in contrast, requires the mythical Jesus to have been moved out of the realm of mythology into a very particular historical setting, the ten-year span in which Pilate was governor, that was still within living memory when the story was first written down. I can't think of a comparable event happening anywhere, and certainly not in the Roman world.

[Physics Guy]

That news could have been disseminated whether Jesus really lived or not.

True, but I don’t think leaving this at 50/50 can be good historical reasoning, though perhaps Kishkumen can correct me. Two things are not equally likely just because they both could have been.

If Jesus lived in Pilate’s time then there’s a really strong reason for details about Pilate to appear in his story. It’s got to be over 90% likely that Pilate stays in the picture.

If Jesus never lived then it’s harder to see why anyone would mention Pilate. It’s not going to add much authenticity because few beyond Pilate’s orbit will have heard of him—and those who were in his orbit will know that there was no Jesus. If you’re inserting a historical figure into a fiction, you pick the biggest name that you think you can get away with including. So conceivably these Jesus myth makers were just inept about this, or some other fluke happened, but there is just no way that the probability of Pilate coming in to the story is as high without Jesus as with.

The fact that it’s so easy to overlook this, and just say, “Ah, they’re both 50/50,” is an example of what’s positively wrong about Bayesian history. It can paint a bogus gloss of rigor over dubious assumptions. Multiply this kind of thing a couple of times, as one does in this game, and you get probabilities that reflect nothing but one’s own bias.

[Kishkumen]

Yes, PG. That’s exactly right. I had written, and I thought I had posted a reply to stem about how he was ignoring a big chunk of our conversation up to this point to arrive at 50/50. I am not surprised, however. This is the Carrier way. Each piece of evidence is whittled down to something negligible and somehow the aggregate of the evidences are not allowed to do more than make anything a toss up. In truth, this is not how historical probability should work at all.

[Kishkumen]

What is Carrier's hypothesis about why the mythical Jesus came to be located in the time and place that he was? Why did the believers in this heavenly being turn him into a human?

The conventional non-Christian explanation for Jesus' semidivine status is that he was a human whose followers were devoted enough to deny he was dead and to expect that he would return someday. That's not a wild hypothesis, given that similar beliefs have emerged about other very real people with devoted followings, from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Mahdi to Haile Selassie to Menachem Mendel Schneerson (and even Elvis Presley). Similarly, people in the ancient Mediterranean world deified human beings pretty frequently. Jews may not have done so, but by the end of the first century, when we see the Gospel of John make the first unambiguous declaration that Jesus was God, most — or at least an awful lot of — Christians were of non-Jewish origin. So the conventional explanation is based on phenomena that have actually been observed in better-documented cases.

The Jesus myth theory, in contrast, requires the mythical Jesus to have been moved out of the realm of mythology into a very particular historical setting, the ten-year span in which Pilate was governor, that was still within living memory when the story was first written down. I can't think of a comparable event happening anywhere, and certainly not in the Roman world.

By the first century CE, there were Jewish texts teaching that some angels embodied as human beings. See the fragment of the Prayer of Joseph transmitted by Origen. You probably already know this. I’m just pointing out that it is not inconceivable, even from a Jewish point of view, that a human could also be, in a sense, a divine being.

[IHAQ]

Yes, PG. That’s exactly right. I had written, and I thought I had posted a reply to stem about how he was ignoring a big chunk of our conversation up to this point to arrive at 50/50. I am not surprised, however. This is the Carrier way. Each piece of evidence is whittled down to something negligible and somehow the aggregate of the evidences are not allowed to do more than make anything a toss up. In truth, this is not how historical probability should work at all.

just as a sort of aside. Do you happen to know how many root sources there are for evidence of Jesus?

[Kishkumen]

just as a sort of aside. Do you happen to know how many root sources there are for evidence of Jesus?

I am not sure what you mean by "root source." Do you mean "eyewitness account"?

[dastardly stem]

I hope we see this conversation come to an end at some point and we can move on with mutual respect. On the question of whether Jesus lived i can certainly be convinced he did, as i said when this all started im personally swayed in thinking he did. I thought Carriers position was being misconstrued so I persisted as I think he has a pretty strong case.

On the question of whether Jesus lived, I only have to consider the evidence offered by those claiming he did and point out whether it works or doesn't work and why. On the claim that the mention of Pilate is evidence id maintain its not evidence for Jesus living. Its actually irrelevant on the explanation I offered. Shrug...a little. I couldbe wrong. But I don't see how. The concept of verisimilitude seems to be used to explain history and connect elements of the stories so they make sense and come out a little more full and acceptable,, but I admit I don't think it can be taken as evidence for a claim since by far the most parsimonious explanation, particularly in this case, is that Pilate was already rumored as a governor who was cruel and persecuted and killed. There certainly could have been others but as has been said it only takes one to make the story work and any old one will do.

I'd be happy to address other evidence as I'm quite aware there is other pieces. I know Carrier and many others have considered and addressed each piece of claimed evidence. I appreciate the conversation. Its interesting at least to think about these things in this way.