Is Mormonism so bad?

[honorentheos]

If it sounds as if I"m a terribly demanding reader, I am. I make no apologies. Long before I ever heard the words (and I swear this happened; this pilot should go to charm school) "We"re going to try an emergency landing at the nearest airport that can read our black box," it had already dawned on me that I"m not going to live forever. This means I may never get through the list of the great books I want to read. Forget about bad ones, or even moderately good ones. With Middlemarch and A Pilgrim at Tinker Creek in the world, a person should squander her reading time on fashionably ironic books about nothing much? I"m almost out of minutes!

I"m patient with most corners of my life, but put a book in my hands and suddenly I remind myself of a harrowing dating-game shark, long in the tooth and looking for love right now, thank you, get out of my way if you"re just going to waste my time and don"t really want kids or the long- term commitment. I give a novel thirty pages, and if it"s not by that point talking to me of till-death-do-us-part, sorry, buster, this date"s over. I"ve chucked many half-finished books into the donation box.

You might be thinking right now that you"re glad I was never your writing instructor, and a few former students of mine would agree with you. Once in a workshop after I"d already explained repeatedly that brevity is the soul of everything, writing-wise, and I was still getting fifty-page stories that should have been twenty- page stories, I announced: "Starting tomorrow, I will read twenty- five pages of any story you give me, and then I"ll stop. If you think you have the dazzling skill to keep me hanging on for pages twenty-six-plus because my life won"t be complete without them, just go ahead and try."

I"m sorry to admit I was such a harpy, but this is a critical lesson for writers. We are nothing if we can"t respect our readers.

It"s audacious enough to send a piece of writing out into the world (which already contains Middlemarch), asking readers to sit down, shut up, ignore kids or work or whatever important things they have going, and listen to me. Not for just a minute but for hours, days.

It had better be important.

[Kishkumen]

But I don't see how this helps me figure out how to deal with a highly mythologized character. To get to a secular real guy Jesus, we have to discard tons of evidence from the Gospels other religious texts. At what point do we conclude there is likely no baby -- just bath water?

We have not been dealing with "getting to a secular real guy Jesus." We are still working on the questions of whether the evidence of Jesus' historicity is relatively good, and whether Pilate's interacting with Jesus is evidence in favor of Jesus' historicity.

I have shown you two other similar figures who appear in the works of Josephus and are similarly paired with Roman governors. What I am establishing is a fact pattern. How are these kinds of interactions between Roman authorities and charismatic Jewish leaders often discussed? Does the interaction between Pilate and Jesus fit that pattern?

Now, for your question. So much of what we see in the Gospel of Mark could have been written about any other similar kind of figure that I am not sure what you mean, exactly. Yes, people engaged in magical/spiritual healings. I am not saying they worked according to our modern medical standards, but that does not make these events phony. There were actual exorcists in ancient Palestine and in the Diaspora. Josphus reports on an exorcist who performed before the emperor and his sons. So, again, not sure what we are getting rid of to get at the "secular guy" Jesus.

Now, I think it is true that the Gospel of Mark is stitched together in a way that likely does not reflect the chronology of Jesus' life and may include elements that are part of an oral tradition about Jesus that is relatively imaginative. I would not place his execution in that category, and, therefore, I would not place Pontius Pilate in that category. The Roman execution requires a Roman governor with the authority to perform executions. That person is reported to have been Pontius Pilate. We have no reason to doubt that it was. The charge of sedition is entirely consistent with the accusations against Jesus. You can see Paul trying to avoid similar charges in Greece, when the Jews of the local synagogue accused him before Roman authorities because he was going on about a king other than Caesar named Jesus. Paul could have been executed for sedition for doing that.

[honorentheos]

Perhaps another way of asking the question is how much knowing about the historical Jesus as a subject is useful? And compare that with how useful the historical information is we gleen from the records about Jesus?

Making knowledge OF JESUS the priority seems a decidedly religious perspective. What we can take from the record as being literal and factual about Jesus matters a lot if that's our concern. Christians and Mormons claim it's THE concern of a lifetime. Again, that's primarily a matter of religion.

But if the records provide helpful information about a time and place, is the question of what we can say is definitely true about Jesus less important? While at the same time not throwing out the baby that is actually in the religious bathwater? That being the useful historical information? And in that context, Res' baby in the bathwater is what's left when the purely modern religious concerns are set aside. Ancient religious concerns being another matter because again, that's part of the question of context and understanding of the world at that time a little bit better.

If knowledge of a particular person is the issue, there are better candidates for deserving my time than the zealot Jew Jesus of Nazareth. I'd sooner read about Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. But I also find understanding the period of time Jesus reportedly lived valuable, and the influence of the religion based on belief in him more so given its role in shaping Rome and the western world. Just as Mormonism is interesting to me for its influence on my family and local history despite my having zero interest in what the Q12 have to say about the world.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps another way of asking the question is how much knowing about the historical Jesus as a subject is useful? And compare that with how useful the historical information is we gleen from the records about Jesus?

Making knowledge OF JESUS the priority seems a decidedly religious perspective. What we can take from the record as being literal and factual about Jesus matters a lot if that's our concern. Christians and Mormons claim it's THE concern of a lifetime. Again, that's primarily a matter of religion.

But if the records provide helpful information about a time and place, is the question of what we can say is definitely true about Jesus less important? While at the same time not throwing out the baby that is actually in the religious bathwater? That being the useful historical information? And in that context, Res' baby in the bathwater is what's left when the purely modern religious concerns are set aside. Ancient religious concerns being another matter because again, that's part of the question of context and understanding of the world at that time a little bit better.

If knowledge of a particular person is the issue, there are better candidates for deserving my time than the zealot Jew Jesus of Nazareth. I'd sooner read about Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. But I also find understanding the period of time Jesus reportedly lived valuable, and the influence of the religion based on belief in him more so given its role in shaping Rome and the western world. Just as Mormonism is interesting to me for its influence on my family and local history despite my having zero interest in what the Q12 have to say about the world.

I’m mostly interested in resistance to Roman rule, including religious aspects, and the Gospels provide all kinds of interesting evidence regarding that, as do other parts of the New Testament.

People come to the topic from many different angles, and usually I am open to them, but obviously the mythicism approach is getting under my skin.

[Philo Sofee]

Rather than worrying about verifying historical Jesus issues, I have, as of late, been re-reading and thinking of purely how a spiritual approach to me personally in my own life might help me grasp things about Jesus I have missed before.

Perhaps the actual historical is far too strongly emphasized and wrangled over. What can this figure called Jesus do for us to actually, I mean for real now, actually today help for me to have a better day, one day at a time, starting right now? Forget worrying about physical, historical reality. That isn't nearly as important as just how does what he said or did affect me, at this time, right now, during this entire day? What can I do to actually make a difference for good in someone's life because of what I read about Jesus? I am finding this approach is actually quite fun and enjoyable. I am also, interestingly enough (!) mentioning Jesus a lot more, not preaching, not evangelizing, not any of that noise, just mentioning what I have read and how I took it. I have actually had some very doggone interesting conversations man! This is doing something that is shocking me sort of. It is adding creativity to my day. I'm not kidding!

Soooooo, that is what I am doing for a while. The old way of looking at Jesus is just too apologetic and causes more disruption than effort to understand, enjoy, and appreciate. Man, am I starting to get old or what?

[Jersey Girl]

Rather than worrying about verifying historical Jesus issues, I have, as of late, been re-reading and thinking of purely how a spiritual approach to me personally in my own life might help me grasp things about Jesus I have missed before.

Perhaps the actual historical is far too strongly emphasized and wrangled over. What can this figure called Jesus do for us to actually, I mean for real now, actually today help for me to have a better day, one day at a time, starting right now? Forget worrying about physical, historical reality. That isn't nearly as important as just how does what he said or did affect me, at this time, right now, during this entire day? What can I do to actually make a difference for good in someone's life because of what I read about Jesus? I am finding this approach is actually quite fun and enjoyable. I am also, interestingly enough (!) mentioning Jesus a lot more, not preaching, not evangelizing, not any of that noise, just mentioning what I have read and how I took it. I have actually had some very doggone interesting conversations man! This is doing something that is shocking me sort of. It is adding creativity to my day. I'm not kidding!

Soooooo, that is what I am doing for a while. The old way of looking at Jesus is just too apologetic and causes more disruption than effort to understand, enjoy, and appreciate. Man, am I starting to get old or what?

What you are describing are called life applications.

Here is some advice if you'd like to try it. Go online to the New Testament, KJV is my preference because I was raised on it and so were you. Copy the words of Jesus--go ahead and start at Matthew. The paste it onto a word document and then...remove the numbered chapter and verse breaks.

Read it as a continuing narrative instead of a series of isolated verse. Let me know if you try that and if you see any difference in the delivery or meaning, if you will.

See what you think about that.

If you notice when I quote scripture here, which is rare these days, I tend to post it in full paragraphs. I think it makes a difference but you may think differently. I don't know.

There might be books available like that. You know. Buy a new book?

[dastardly stem]

Have any of us actually read how Carrier discussed Bayes and how it works? Or are we just assuming we know what he meant when using Bayes? I actually thought his book Proving History on the Bayes ideas was really good. True, it was technical, but then again, isn't history and figuring things out technical? I'm just askin is all. It isn't about eliminating subjectivity at all, it is about controlling it. Subjective is in everything we ever do, say or think. To let it go wildly out of control is silly. Bayes is supposed to help us out with that. I think that was how Carrier approached using it in historical sources. True even if we only have just one meager source, we HAVE to START somewhere, and it's going to be subjective automatically. So how to we control even that with meager sources? Using to the best of our ability whatever other evidence there is. That is what Bayes is about, I think.

After seeing Carrier getting beat up here and after having decided and undecided and decided again whether it's worth it to try and understand him. I decided to read Proving History. I read On the Historicity of Jesus some years back and most of what I've said comes from my memories of that book. I read it not realizing it is essentially part 2 of his research into the question of Jesus' historicity, written after Proving History, even though it probably says as much. I think what you say is a pretty good summary. It feels far more interesting and less controversial to me than how others are portraying it. It seems to me any kind of historic analysis applies the expertise, experience, and subjectivity of the analyzer. On the use of Bayes all of that goes into the premises, but the output at that point is all consistent. That may mean garbage in results in garbage out but that'd be the same for any historic analysis, so any application of Bayes has to be careful on that. But it does mean the disagreement and credible challenges must go into the premises. To me Bayes seems to only help put numbers to the estimations people often consider without number in their heads. I'd worry that criticism from history comes wholly on the basis of numbers being the result, or applying numbers to the approximations in someone's head. In the end, though, it feels like Bayes helps supply more ground rules for consistencies' sake and that feels like a good thing.

I'm intrigued by the push back on Carrier at bit though. It feels far more political than analytical to me. On Jesus applying the methods he lays out in Proving History he's concluded Jesus is around a 1 in 3 chance to having lived. On that he's said that's a really good chance considering the time and place under consideration. That'd also mean there's a better chance of Jesus having lived than many other characters of history. But, ultimately, the result is it's more likely Jesus didn't live than did live. And that conclusion has garnered him criticism all because, it seems, other experts have approximated otherwise without applying numbers, per se. It does feel like they say something along the lines of we have to play by different rules from ancient days because if we don't then the existence of many historic figures could reasonably be questioned. I don't see why that's a good reason for what appears to be so much dismissiveness.

I'm going to finish Proving History. I think the first few chapters are excellent and are worth considering. I would think most of what he describes there could be put here and people would largely agree. His methods seem sound. I'm certain there is plenty to argue about, but when I see and read the criticisms and responses it amounts to either quality things to disagree about or some form of misunderstanding.

[Meadowchik]

Have any of us actually read how Carrier discussed Bayes and how it works? Or are we just assuming we know what he meant when using Bayes? I actually thought his book Proving History on the Bayes ideas was really good. True, it was technical, but then again, isn't history and figuring things out technical? I'm just askin is all. It isn't about eliminating subjectivity at all, it is about controlling it. Subjective is in everything we ever do, say or think. To let it go wildly out of control is silly. Bayes is supposed to help us out with that. I think that was how Carrier approached using it in historical sources. True even if we only have just one meager source, we HAVE to START somewhere, and it's going to be subjective automatically. So how to we control even that with meager sources? Using to the best of our ability whatever other evidence there is. That is what Bayes is about, I think.

After seeing Carrier getting beat up here and after having decided and undecided and decided again whether it's worth it to try and understand him. I decided to read Proving History. I read On the Historicity of Jesus some years back and most of what I've said comes from my memories of that book. I read it not realizing it is essentially part 2 of his research into the question of Jesus' historicity, written after Proving History, even though it probably says as much. I think what you say is a pretty good summary. It feels far more interesting and less controversial to me than how others are portraying it. It seems to me any kind of historic analysis applies the expertise, experience, and subjectivity of the analyzer. On the use of Bayes all of that goes into the premises, but the output at that point is all consistent. That may mean garbage in results in garbage out but that'd be the same for any historic analysis, so any application of Bayes has to be careful on that. But it does mean the disagreement and credible challenges must go into the premises. To me Bayes seems to only help put numbers to the estimations people often consider without number in their heads. I'd worry that criticism from history comes wholly on the basis of numbers being the result, or applying numbers to the approximations in someone's head. In the end, though, it feels like Bayes helps supply more ground rules for consistencies' sake and that feels like a good thing.

I'm intrigued by the push back on Carrier at bit though. It feels far more political than analytical to me. On Jesus applying the methods he lays out in Proving History he's concluded Jesus is around a 1 in 3 chance to having lived. On that he's said that's a really good chance considering the time and place under consideration. That'd also mean there's a better chance of Jesus having lived than many other characters of history. But, ultimately, the result is it's more likely Jesus didn't live than did live. And that conclusion has garnered him criticism all because, it seems, other experts have approximated otherwise without applying numbers, per se. It does feel like they say something along the lines of we have to play by different rules from ancient days because if we don't then the existence of many historic figures could reasonably be questioned. I don't see why that's a good reason for what appears to be so much dismissiveness.

I'm going to finish Proving History. I think the first few chapters are excellent and are worth considering. I would think most of what he describes there could be put here and people would largely agree. His methods seem sound. I'm certain there is plenty to argue about, but when I see and read the criticisms and responses it amounts to either quality things to disagree about or some form of misunderstanding.

Yep, and the way I have seen it used is with a knowing self awareness of the subjectivity. The point is that "these are the results if we rely on the premises X,Y,Z." So, to me at least, it is not meant to be a proof, but a more informed evaluation of the results of accepting some claims.

You can tell real fast is someone is misusing the method when they call those odds proof.

[Kishkumen]

Maybe calling the first volume Proving History wasn't such a great idea.

[Kishkumen]

I'm intrigued by the push back on Carrier at bit though. It feels far more political than analytical to me. On Jesus applying the methods he lays out in Proving History he's concluded Jesus is around a 1 in 3 chance to having lived. On that he's said that's a really good chance considering the time and place under consideration. That'd also mean there's a better chance of Jesus having lived than many other characters of history. But, ultimately, the result is it's more likely Jesus didn't live than did live. And that conclusion has garnered him criticism all because, it seems, other experts have approximated otherwise without applying numbers, per se. It does feel like they say something along the lines of we have to play by different rules from ancient days because if we don't then the existence of many historic figures could reasonably be questioned. I don't see why that's a good reason for what appears to be so much dismissiveness.

Political as in whaaa??? Methodological, not political. I fail to see how disagreeing about the validity of his methods is necessarily political, especially from people like me who really have no theological reason to insist on Jesus' historical existence. Calling disagreement over this political almost sounds like calling climate scientists political for arguing in favor of the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

One in three chances is exactly backwards to the odds I would put on Jesus' existence, at worst. Additionally, I am not sure what the value of applying numbers that are mere guesses to this is anyway. I am with Physics Guy on this. In any case, I don't think you understand my point about the amount of evidence we can expect for ancient people, at least identified by name, in comparison with modern people. If your baseline for accepting a person as having really existed consists of a bunch of assumptions brought over from a highly bureaucratic and literate society, then your baseline will be horribly skewed. This is especially important when, as in the case of Carrier, your Bayesian values are highly subjective.