Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_mikwut]

Hi Analytics,

Thanks for the kind response to my questions and the example. Before I begin to lob criticisms further let me make sure I understand. Did you just arbitrarily input the weighting numbers for illustration purposes or did you actually apply what you believe the numbers should be?

Second, with questions like the existence of Jesus how do you apply Bayesian reasoning when the probabilities are so high? For example, when you weigh the argument of no contrary but you further bring it into the 2nd century and beyond you reach what I consider nearly a falsification of the mythicists position. Anyone who has read the church fathers recognizes the extreme radar for "heresy" and stomping it out and the sanitizing of doctrine that took place. So Earl Doherty believes Jesus was resurrected in a celestial mystical place but not on the dirt and ground earth. Yet, we have heresy's being stomped out left and right in the early church writings. Historically there would have had to have been a shift - from the mystical understanding to the real dirt and ground Jesus being the majority position. For the dirt and ground theory to become the majority position the mystical idea wouldn't just disappear from history it would be fuller stomped out like any other "heresy". But what we see is nothing, nothing at all. For me this and the argument of no contrary don't need Bayesian reasoning we are simply in the mythical idea being so improbable it is silly without even discussing all the other arguments against the mythicist position.

Third, how do authoritative arguments get weighed? The mythicist position is held in a less minority position than creationists, the real Jesus is accepted by the extreme vast majority of academic experts, atheist, agnostic, theist, Christian and Jew? Do we as non experts use a different Bayesian reasoning or are we allowed to just say none of them apply Bayesian reasoning?

mikwut

[_huckelberry]

But Analytics, again the inputs are arbitrary?

The inputs hopefully aren't arbitrary--they ought to be based on rigorous historical analysis.

The one exception to that is the a priori input. That one is arbitrary, in the sense that it is set up before the evidence (or new evidence) is examined.

Analytics , you provided,
"P(b3|A) = 0.01
P(B|A) = 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.01 = 0.0098"

I find this very difficult to not see as establishing your desired conclusion into your premise.

But what I see is the formulae being used as a distraction when the argument presented hinges upon whether it is accurate to say christian discourse prior to mark did not see an actual human Jew. (that 0.01 figure)

[_richardMdBorn]

Paul Maier says this is the strongest kind of evidence, and that, “you can argue about whether he was the Son of God or not, you can argue about the supernatural aspects of his life, but in terms of the historical character there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary and all the evidence is in the favor.”

I recently heard a repeat of a discussion with Meier on Issues Etc. (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod program) He compared the trial of Jesus in the gospels with the trial of his half brother James 29 years later (which is recounted in Josephus). See Josephus’ Antiquities 20:197-203

[_richardMdBorn]

delete - dup

[Guest]

Philo,

Your missing the point, I'm the one that should be using your own resource against you not the other way around, i'm not attacking Bayesian reasoning. What I'm advocating and haven't seen Carrier or anyone else refute is for all intents and purposes Bayesian reasoning HAS been applied to history for a very long time. Different language is used that's all. For example any historian who applies my arguments from no contrary and my above argument of no history of the mythical heresy can either plug in .97 into a Bayesian calculation or just say the arguments themselves refute the contrary argument through deductive historical reasoning to the best explanation. It is why I brought up Dan Vogel. If Carrier applied Bayesian reasoning to Dan Vogel's arguments respecting Joseph Smith he is gonna land right around where Vogel does. So, my argument is how on earth can Bayesian reasoning turn the issue of a historical Jesus from one of near expert unanimity 180 degrees to a mythicist position? That's ridiculous. That is equivalent to saying that biologists in creating the history of human origins haven't used Bayesian reasoning (they don't for all intents and purposes) and if we do apply Bayesian reasoning we can get to a creationist position. It is absurd. Were going to get to the same evolutionary conclusions using either method because the weighing in Bayesian reasoning is based on the same logical rational arguments. Using Bayesian reasoning on the current academic reality of the question answers the question. Here is the argument:

The probability of the traditional historical critical method reaching such a unanimous position in academia and bayesian reasoning turning that in the complete opposite direction is .01. This is because the critical reasoning and methods used in the traditional historical critical method are for all intents and purposes Bayesian to begin with. Carrier is playing a shell game.

mikwut

[_richardMdBorn]

b3: Conspiracy of Silence. We know that Peter and Paul existed and started Christianity, and we still have their writings. However, they talked about Jesus Christ resurrected, not Jesus of Nazareth, the celebrity that went around preaching, healing, feeding, and raising the dead. (see Earl Doherty for more details).

I've heard this argument before but I don't think it works. And if proto gospels were floating around, they wouldn't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel. Note that Luke, the author of Luke-Acts was Paul's companion (see the change from third to first person in Acts 16). One can make a strong argument that Luke wrote both Luke and Acts, with Luke clearly written first. Acts ends with Paul still alive. It's a relatively short book. If Paul had been executed before the completion of Acts, surely his death would have been included. Thus, Acts was written before 65 and Luke before that. Ancient sources claim that Mark was based on the recollections of Peter. Thus, the attempt to split the gospels from the Pauline-Petrine writings does not work as well as you think it does. I note that you have a very late date for Mark (c 80).

[_sock puppet]

Can someone calculate the probability that Jesus lived(existed as human on earth) given the conditional probability ,certainty , pb=1 that God does exist

and then calculate the same with pb=0 god exists

and separately calculate the pb God exists given the conditional probability pc=.5 that intelligent design is necessary for the world/creation to have come into being.


probability of the above items being stupid ps=.75

just calculatin

k

I see what you did there--stacked the deck. Remind me not to play 21 with you as the dealer.

[_sock puppet]

But Analytics, again the inputs are arbitrary?

Ah, but you do not assail the methodology of his deductions derived from those arbitrary inputs.

[_sock puppet]

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.

Thank you, and I love the pun.

[_Jersey Girl]

Philo Sofee,

I have a question. I've been reading threads like this for over 16 years. Probably much like you. Have you not decided for yourself that the historical Jesus existed or not?

I'm just curious about that.