Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Mary]

I listened to a few of his presentations last year, and listened to his debate with Mark Goodacre.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zKoOvhuHMqY

Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist" also offers an opposing view.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/ ... sc=y&hl=en

[_Kishkumen]

He has a PhD in history from Colombia, so he needs to be taken seriously.

Oh sweet Jesus. No. He does not need to be taken seriously on that basis.

Look at his work. Listen to him speak. Then decide whether he should taken seriously. I know plenty of PhD's from big institutions whom I would not take seriously. I come to those conclusions based on their actual work.

I once saw him speak on why Jesus could not be a historical figure based on the likelihood that the narrative flow in the Gospels could apply to a real person. It was a mind-numbingly stupid argument. That is why I don't take him seriously.

[_Analytics]

He has a PhD in history from Colombia, so he needs to be taken seriously.

Oh sweet Jesus. No. He does not need to be taken seriously on that basis.

Perhaps an a good example of your point is a particular Egyptologist with a Ph.D. from Yale, lol. I meant "seriously" with a small "s"; don't dismiss him out of hand based on the fact that he questions the historical Jesus.

I'm currently listening to Carrier's debate with Mark Goodacre. I'm up to minute 49, and Carrier is kicking ass so far. Carrier is able to analyze different paradigms on their own terms. Goodacre seems really stuck in his own assumptions.

[_Philo Sofee]

As a side-note, I think I heard an interview with Richard Carrier on NPR a year or two ago, but otherwise, never heard of him until this thread. He has a PhD in history from Colombia, so he needs to be taken seriously.

He has two books on Amazon relevant to this thread: Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, and On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Both look quite formidable.

I think I already get his point with regards to Bayesian analysis, so I'm going to skip that one for now, and instead jump right into On the Historicity of Jesus. It looks like his basic point is the same as Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle, which has always been a compelling case for me. However, Carrier's credentials are better than Doherty's, and it also appears he examines everything in more detail. But still, he's telling me a message I already tend to accept. Would any believers in Jesus' historicity like to read the book too, so we could have some detailed discussions about it?

I have both the books and their audio so I can and have listened to them many times. You would enjoy the books Analytics.

[_Mary]

Analytics, this is a pretty short response by Ehrman to Carrier.
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

[Guest]

Philo,

Why don't you just show us? Take just one example of the critical method as I'll introduce below and then you apply Baye's probability to it. If Richard Carrier is correct we should have close to unanimous agreement because after all its just math right?

Your assumption that because it's math and that unanimous agreement is going to be the result is soundly refuted by E. T. Jaynes in his book "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science," Cambridge University Press, 2003: 126ff. This is, yet another book showing the mathematical prowess, validity, and utility of Bayes Theorem, with many hundreds of applications in all sorts of disciplines. he gives numerous detailed analysis and examples. Richard Carrier is not alone in advocating and demonstrating the mathematical reasonableness, validity and use of Bayes Theorem.

[_Philo Sofee]

Analytics, this is a pretty short response by Ehrman to Carrier.
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Carrier's voluminous correspondence with Ehrman is necessary for the context here. Just quoting one side of the debate is almost cheating when there are clearly and solidly *both* sides fully available. I'm just sayin.......

[_Kishkumen]

Analytics, this is a pretty short response by Ehrman to Carrier.
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Yes, Richard Carrier's blog is a trainwreck. Ehrman, who is, at least, a grown up, knows how to respond to someone who is off his gourd.

[_Philo Sofee]

Analytics:
He has a PhD in history from Colombia, so he needs to be taken seriously.

Kishkumen:
Oh sweet Jesus. No. He does not need to be taken seriously on that basis.

Analytics:
Perhaps an a good example of your point is a particular Egyptologist with a Ph.D. from Yale, lol. I meant "seriously" with a small "s"; don't dismiss him out of hand based on the fact that he questions the historical Jesus.

I'm currently listening to Carrier's debate with Mark Goodacre. I'm up to minute 49, and Carrier is kicking ass so far. Carrier is able to analyze different paradigms on their own terms. Goodacre seems really stuck in his own assumptions.

Carrier is also going to debate on April 14th (I think) with Craig L. Evans on the historical Jesus! This is very exciting because the ideas are getting out there and need more exposure so we can see if they are actually realistic or not. Evans is no fly-by-nighter when it comes to being a Jesus scholar.

[_Philo Sofee]

Analytics, this is a pretty short response by Ehrman to Carrier.
http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Yes, Richard Carrier's blog is a trainwreck. Ehrman, who is, at least, a grown up, knows how to respond to someone who is off his gourd.

I would disagree in a friendly way. I find it vastly more informative than what you are implying. All the way around Carrier has held his own with every reviewer so far of his books. I suspect bias plays more of a role in your statement than actually having read his blog. No biggie to me.