Is Mormonism so bad?

[dastardly stem]

Stem. Employ the Law of Parsimony.

You may have to help me In regards to what you mean, because I thought I was.

[Kishkumen]

Not to be the butt, but I don't think you need to show that. We only need to know it was a possibility. That is if, we'll say, the author of Mark was intent on writing the story already in existence orally, then Pilate would be already included in that story. I don't see why anyone would need to show why Pilate was the one, when all we really to need to know is he was one. As it is, the claim was the mention of Pilate is strong evidence Jesus actually lived...not the other way around.

****

This is a good point. It's certainly possible a Jew in Antioch or Rome could have heard the legend of a particular miserable governor. Again as the legend goes, though, the story of Jesus was shared orally. It's certainly not the case that the author of Mark was witness to the events in that gospel. So he had to rely on someone or some ones to tell him at least some portion of the story with details

So, if the Gospel of Mark is written in the 70s CE, then four decades after the fact a Jew in Rome hears a legend about a crummy governor of Judea named Pontius Pilate and decides to craft a tale about his execution of a guy named Jesus, who is really just a mythological construct based on the Ascension of Isaiah, which may or may not exist yet. Some of the most historically plausible details happen to concern this comparatively minor official.

Hmmm . . . .

[huckelberry]

Stem. Employ the Law of Parsimony.

You may have to help me In regards to what you mean, because I thought I was.

parsimony, like Occam's razor

What is the simplest explanation for the historical facts about the beginning of Christianity?
Is there any known fact about Christianity better explained by the theory that there was no real person ,Jesus, than the theory that a first century Jewish preacher, Jesus, gathered followers who became the early Christians after he was executed by the Romans.

[Kishkumen]

parsimony, like Occam's razor

What is the simplest explanation for the historical facts about the beginning of Christianity?
Is there any known fact about Christianity better explained by the theory that there was no real person ,Jesus, than the theory that a first century Jewish preacher, Jesus, gathered followers who became the early Christians after he was executed by the Romans.

No, not really.

[Physics Guy]

I was surprised that one could find even two expert historians who would say so much good about Bayesian history, so I googled Aviezar Tucker and Ephraim Wallach. They’re real guys but not quite as authoritative as they sound.

Tucker appears to be the only Fellow that the Gvirtzman Memorial Foundation has ever had, and it looks as though his status at Harvard was that of a visiting scholar with some outside money. The Davis Center probably wouldn’t give even desk space to a loon, and Tucker has had a couple of books published by Cambridge University Press. So I’m pretty sure he’s not just a flake. He has never been on the Harvard faculty, though, and his Harvard affiliation is too tenuous to confer Harvard authority on him. He’s also published articles on a wild range of topics: he looks like a bit of a loose cannon that way. That doesn’t mean he’s all full of BS but it indicates a certain willingness to push the envelope of his expertise.

Ephraim Wallach lists his affiliation as the Hebrew University, but what that seems to mean is that he got his PhD there, not that he’s on the faculty. So again, he’s not just a flake. He evidently did get a real PhD from a real place. His Bayesian article is published in a Springer journal. But neither is he the major authority that it sounds like he is when you read his description of himself.

Academia is a big place with fuzzy edges. There are tons of independent scholars with real credentials. Some are brilliant and highly respected. Some are crackpots who got through grad school somehow and then lost it. There are tons of books and journals. Some are landmarks and a lot are obscure.

If I had to put it in Bayesian terms I’d say that my hypothesis that Bayesian history is fatally flawed would still predict a high probability that Bayesian history would be endorsed by a couple of people at about these guys’ level. Academia is like that. There’s somebody on the fringe to support anything. It’s not a matter of the tenured professors at famous schools necessarily being smarter than these guys; it’s more that people like Tucker and Wallach tend to be more isolated, and have more incentive to get noticed with a controversial view while having less to lose from looking foolish.

I don’t mean to encourage you to respect academic authority, at least not at this level. Maybe if half the Harvard history faculty came out in favor of Bayesian history that would be worth respecting. A couple of guys with PhDs should not be swaying anyone with their authority. Still less should I sway anyone that way, an anonymous Physics Guy on the internet.

I’ve tried to explain the problem with Bayesian history, how it can’t improve on old-fashioned arguments but can offer an illusion that it does. Did I make the problem clear? Did I somehow exaggerate it?

[Jersey Girl]

Stem. Employ the Law of Parsimony.

You may have to help me In regards to what you mean, because I thought I was.

Occam's Razor. And based on the few posts of yours I read just before commenting, you are not using it. Not even close.

[Meadowchik]

I was surprised that one could find even two expert historians who would say so much good about Bayesian history, so I googled Aviezar Tucker and Ephraim Wallach. They’re real guys but not quite as authoritative as they sound.

Tucker appears to be the only Fellow that the Gvirtzman Memorial Foundation has ever had, and it looks as though his status at Harvard was that of a visiting scholar with some outside money. The Davis Center probably wouldn’t give even desk space to a loon, and Tucker has had a couple of books published by Cambridge University Press. So I’m pretty sure he’s not just a flake. He has never been on the Harvard faculty, though, and his Harvard affiliation is too tenuous to confer Harvard authority on him. He’s also published articles on a wild range of topics: he looks like a bit of a loose cannon that way. That doesn’t mean he’s all full of BS but it indicates a certain willingness to push the envelope of his expertise.

Ephraim Wallach lists his affiliation as the Hebrew University of New York, but what that seems to mean is that he got his PhD there, not that he’s on the faculty. So again, he’s not just a flake. He evidently did get a real PhD from a real place. His Bayesian article is published in a Springer journal. But neither is he the major authority that it sounds like he is when you read his description of himself.

Academia is a big place with fuzzy edges. There are tons of independent scholars with real credentials. Some are brilliant and highly respected. Some are crackpots who got through grad school somehow and then lost it. There are tons of books and journals. Some are landmarks and a lot are obscure.

If I had to put it in Bayesian terms I’d say that my hypothesis that Bayesian history is fatally flawed would still predict a high probability that Bayesian history would be endorsed by a couple of people at about these guys’ level. Academia is like that. There’s somebody on the fringe to support anything. It’s not a matter of the tenured professors at famous schools necessarily being smarter than these guys; it’s more that people like Tucker and Wallach tend to be more isolated, and have more incentive to get noticed with a controversial view while having less to lose from looking foolish.

I don’t mean to encourage you to respect academic authority, at least not at this level. Maybe if half the Harvard history faculty came out in favor of Bayesian history that would be worth respecting. A couple of guys with PhDs should not be swaying anyone with their authority. Still less should I sway anyone that way, an anonymous Physics Guy on the internet.

I’ve tried to explain the problem with Bayesian history, how it can’t improve on old-fashioned arguments but can offer an illusion that it does. Did I make the problem clear? Did I somehow exaggerate it?

I think it is more reasonable to assume that you are not familiar enough with it to assess the application of Bayesian analysis in this field.

Furthermore, you'd probably need to engage specifically with their methodologies, not just your own framing of them, to be able to say anything authoritative about them.

[dastardly stem]

Not to be the butt, but I don't think you need to show that. We only need to know it was a possibility. That is if, we'll say, the author of Mark was intent on writing the story already in existence orally, then Pilate would be already included in that story. I don't see why anyone would need to show why Pilate was the one, when all we really to need to know is he was one. As it is, the claim was the mention of Pilate is strong evidence Jesus actually lived...not the other way around.

****

This is a good point. It's certainly possible a Jew in Antioch or Rome could have heard the legend of a particular miserable governor. Again as the legend goes, though, the story of Jesus was shared orally. It's certainly not the case that the author of Mark was witness to the events in that gospel. So he had to rely on someone or some ones to tell him at least some portion of the story with details

So, if the Gospel of Mark is written in the 70s CE, then four decades after the fact a Jew in Rome hears a legend about a crummy governor of Judea named Pontius Pilate and decides to craft a tale about his execution of a guy named Jesus, who is really just a mythological construct based on the Ascension of Isaiah, which may or may not exist yet. Some of the most historically plausible details happen to concern this comparatively minor official.

Hmmm . . . .

There's no reason to take it that far, if Jesus lived then carrying that detail concerning Pilate to the author of Mark's ear reuirs the same level of improbability if Jesus didn't live. All it takes is some to keep that name attached to the story. I'm back to not seeing it as evidence for Jesus living. Its as likely to appear in mark whether Jesus lived or not.

[dastardly stem]

You may have to help me In regards to what you mean, because I thought I was.

Occam's Razor. And based on the few posts of yours I read just before commenting, you are not using it. Not even close.

I'm aware of the meaning. I thought I was being more parsimonious than the one holding the position that good evidence for Jesus' existence is pilate appearing in the story. I can't see why it's evidence based solely on the notion of being parsimonious. I appreciate the contribution.

[Physics Guy]

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?