Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Analytics]

This has been a truly marvelous discussion you guys. Thank you so much for sharing your ideas and your views. I learned so much from this board. I'm continuing to study the historical Jesus from the historical Jesus Scholars. It is without question one of the very most interesting subjects in all of literature. I hope you won't mind if every now and then I bring up something controversial and argue about it and discuss it. Yes Carriers Bayesian analysis of the historical Jesus is difficult for some people to accept. Until an actual Jesus historian refutes Carriers Bayesian analysis with Bayesian analysis instead of emotion however I think Carrier has done the best job so far. That doesn't mean he's correct I'm not saying that. I'm saying is Bayesian analysis appears to me to be seriously strong. I'm looking forward to the time when someone can show with a Bayesian analysis that all of his background and all of his evidence is probabilistically less than what is in favor of a historical Jesus existed. In the meantime there's plenty of fun stuff to discuss. I love you guys man.

Agreed. For the record, I really like Jesus. Whether he existed historically or not, I consider the synoptic gospels to be among the very best literature ever produced, and the teachings in them to be revolutionary.

In the end, I don't know if Carrier's analysis is sound. But I do know the Bayesian approach is a valid and insightful way to look at the problem. It isn't enough to say there is evidence for a historical Jesus--you also have to show that the "historical Jesus" hypothesis fits the totality of the evidence better than the "mystical Jesus" hypothesis.

[Guest]

Carrier claims that given how common Roman executions were and how common the name Jesus was, they probably executed a few prophets named Jesus every year.

And there is a difference between saying that and saying that you know that Pilate executed them during the reign of Tiberius in connection with events that occurred around Passover.

This is the kind of red herring Carrier loves to throw into historical discussions.

I think you are seriously imagining that Carrier's argument is something other than what it is. According to Aviezer Tucker, Proving History makes the case for using a Bayesian Analysis, and then shows that argument after argument for the historicity of Jesus are fallacious--a set of "worst practices." He then raises the question of why show a set of alleged "worst practices" to make his point about how history should be done.

No, I think you misunderstand what I am doing. I am saying that in all likelihood Carrier's way of doing a Bayesian analysis could lead us to dismiss all kinds of historical figures, which constitutes its own sort of probability issue.

In other words, according to Bayesian Analysis it isn't enough to say there is a little evidence that person X existed in order to claim he probably didn't. Rather, you ALSO need a competing theory that does a better job of explaining the totality of the evidence. That's the difference between using Bayesian Analysis to disprove the existence of Jesus vs. using it to disprove the existence of Antinous. It's not just that there is little direct evidence that both men existed; it's also that there is allegedly a lot of evidence that is better explained by the mysticist theory of Jesus. Until there is a mysticist theory of Antinous that is supported by evidence, Bayesian analysis is going to say sure, he probably existed.

Yes, and this is one place where both I and Symmachus have a huge problem with Carrier, which you don't seem to be picking up on. We both (I believe it is both) dispute that Carrier does have a more likely model for what has happened in the case of Jesus. I am sorry you would rather believe that this poorly attested myth he is championing is more convincing than the decent indirect evidence for Jesus' existence. It really isn't. Furthermore, I don't believe you have grasped the issue with Antinous and how it relates to Carrier's argument.

Maybe I need to revisit that Christ myth Carrier is borrowing from that amateur scholar with a BA in Classics. I think it is cool, to be sure, but I found it a far cry from a convincing hypothesis that better explains Jesus.

[Guest]

Until an actual Jesus historian refutes Carriers Bayesian analysis with Bayesian analysis instead of emotion however I think Carrier has done the best job so far.

For all of the reading you have done, it is disappointing that you think the argument is merely one of emotion versus Carrier's application of Baye's. It is, rather, a question of how well Carrier truly does at applying Baye's, and certainly an historian, even one who does not know Baye's, can weigh in on Carrier's judgment of probabilities. I don't see that you or anyone else has made an adequate response to the issues Symmachus and I have raised. If you think our issues were mere emotion, then you have more fundamental issues with critical thought. Sorry to be so blunt.

[_Maksutov]

Until an actual Jesus historian refutes Carriers Bayesian analysis with Bayesian analysis instead of emotion however I think Carrier has done the best job so far.

For all of the reading you have done, it is disappointing that you think the argument is merely one of emotion versus Carrier's application of Baye's. It is, rather, a question of how well Carrier truly does at applying Baye's, and certainly a historian, even one who does not know Baye's, can weigh in on Carrier's judgment of probabilities. I don't see that you or anyone else has had an adequate response to the issues Symmachus and I have raised. If you think our issues were mere emotion, then you have more fundamental issues with critical thought. Sorry to be so blunt.

Reverend, I hope it would not be a derail if you and our esteemed Symmachus (and doubtless others here) could offer some solid recommendations of works on the historical Jesus for those of us who are literate but not expert and frustrated by the competing claims of popular authors like Carrier, Price and Ehrman...?

[_Kishkumen]

Well, Mak, numerous books have been written on ancient history, and training as an ancient historian is the basis upon which I am responding to Carrier, albeit in a limited and informal way. Carrier benefits from the fact that almost all of his professional interlocutors are New Testament scholars, and thus not ancient historians stricto sensu, so it is little wonder that his approach has not received an adequate response from another ancient historian.

[_Maksutov]

Well, Mak, numerous books have been written on ancient history, and training as an ancient historian is the basis upon which I am responding to Carrier, albeit in a limited and informal way. Carrier benefits from the fact that almost all of his professional interlocutors are New Testament scholars, and thus not ancient historians stricto sensu, so it is little wonder that his approach has not received an adequate response from another ancient historian.

The only author I've read much on the historical Jesus was Crossan. My impression was that he was a strong, mainstream historian of the era. Carrier didn't appeal to me for the same reasons that Earl Doherty didn't years earlier...he was too much of an outlier and had too many flaky allies. But I know that there are many ways to approach and view this and I want to grasp what I can in my limited remaining lifespan. If you could recommend one book to your undergrads on the historical Jesus, what would it be? And if you could think of 5 books, all the better.

[_Kishkumen]

Crossan is a great man and a fine scholar. I really like him, and he has much of value to say on the historical Jesus. That said, his training is in theology and NTS. Like most mainstream scholars who explore the historical Jesus, he begins with the altogether reasonable assumption (given the existing evidence) that Jesus was an actual person. Crossan focuses on what kind of person Jesus was. I honestly do not know whom I would recommend in response to Carrier, because, as Symmachus noted, most mainstream scholars will not spend their time arguing against Carrier. Ehrman does, but then most of his stuff has been pitched at a general readership and he is not an ancient historian.

[_Jersey Girl]

This has been a truly marvelous discussion you guys. Thank you so much for sharing your ideas and your views. I learned so much from this board. I'm continuing to study the historical Jesus from the historical Jesus Scholars. It is without question one of the very most interesting subjects in all of literature. I hope you won't mind if every now and then I bring up something controversial and argue about it and discuss it. Yes Carriers Bayesian analysis of the historical Jesus is difficult for some people to accept. Until an actual Jesus historian refutes Carriers Bayesian analysis with Bayesian analysis instead of emotion however I think Carrier has done the best job so far. That doesn't mean he's correct I'm not saying that. I'm saying is Bayesian analysis appears to me to be seriously strong. I'm looking forward to the time when someone can show with a Bayesian analysis that all of his background and all of his evidence is probabilistically less than what is in favor of a historical Jesus existed. In the meantime there's plenty of fun stuff to discuss. I love you guys man.

This could be a little lengthy, so get comfortable. If I misspeak in this or if I demonstrate ignorance, that goes to the point I'd like to make so I won't worry about it. There is one topic in my life, that I've studied, researched and practiced for a good 30 years. I believe I have the ability to synthesize all the information and knowledge that I have gathered over those 30 years via study and experience, use it to address most any related issue that arises, employ it to teach someone else and help you understand it whether you are professional or non-professional, tailoring it to whomever constitutes my audience at the time. And, I believe that I have in real life and at times, on this board, because I have gained the depth and ability to do so.

That is what I see in replies from Symmachus and Kishkumen, and on previous threads, Aristotle. I pay close attention to what they lay down because it is clear to me that they are able to both synthesize and articulate the knowledge and understanding that I lack. They have insight that I could never hope to have.

I would suggest that you do the same, Philo Sofee, and this is why I think that. I don't believe that most of us here, have the ability to read a book (or a hundred books) and understand what the bloody hell we're talking about. I don't believe that we have the professional discipline to do so.

On another thread, you inquired about a new book. You returned the next day to say that you'd read it and were, I guess, ready to discuss it. I don't know how that could be. I don't see how spending even 24 hours with a book, no matter what the length of the book is/was, gives us time to think, reflect, accommodate and assimilate (that's my professional hat talking there) the information that we've gathered in reading a book one time and reading it fairly quickly.

I know that I couldn't do that, though I freely admit that perhaps there are other and quicker minds than my own.

When I read your above statement about historians vs those acting on emotion, my first thought was to point out to you that you obviously have 2 historians available to you on this very thread and they are willing to teach us via their commentary. I would just like to know that you are willing to consider and appreciate the depth of their knowledge.

I told you this would be long. Don't say you weren't warned. ;-)

In the spirit of friendship and learning...

[_Maksutov]

This has been a truly marvelous discussion you guys. Thank you so much for sharing your ideas and your views. I learned so much from this board. I'm continuing to study the historical Jesus from the historical Jesus Scholars. It is without question one of the very most interesting subjects in all of literature. I hope you won't mind if every now and then I bring up something controversial and argue about it and discuss it. Yes Carriers Bayesian analysis of the historical Jesus is difficult for some people to accept. Until an actual Jesus historian refutes Carriers Bayesian analysis with Bayesian analysis instead of emotion however I think Carrier has done the best job so far. That doesn't mean he's correct I'm not saying that. I'm saying is Bayesian analysis appears to me to be seriously strong. I'm looking forward to the time when someone can show with a Bayesian analysis that all of his background and all of his evidence is probabilistically less than what is in favor of a historical Jesus existed. In the meantime there's plenty of fun stuff to discuss. I love you guys man.

This could be a little lengthy, so get comfortable. If I misspeak in this or if I demonstrate ignorance, that goes to the point I'd like to make so I won't worry about it. There is one topic in my life, that I've studied, researched and practiced for a good 30 years. I believe I have the ability to synthesize all the information and knowledge that I have gathered over those 30 years via study and experience, use it to address most any related issue that arises, employ it to teach someone else and help you understand it whether you are professional or non-professional, tailoring it to whomever constitutes my audience at the time. And, I believe that I have in real life and at times, on this board, because I have gained the depth and ability to do so.

That is what I see in replies from Symmachus and Kishkumen, and on previous threads, Aristotle. I pay close attention to what they lay down because it is clear to me that they are able to both synthesize and articulate the knowledge and understanding that I lack. They have insight that I could never hope to have.

I would suggest that you do the same, Philo Sofee, and this is why I think that. I don't believe that most of us here, have the ability to read a book (or a hundred books) and understand what the bloody hell we're talking about. I don't believe that we have the professional discipline to do so.

On another thread, you inquired about a new book. You returned the next day to say that you'd read it and were, I guess, ready to discuss it. I don't know how that could be. I don't see how spending even 24 hours with a book, no matter what the length of the book is/was, gives us time to think, reflect, accommodate and assimilate (that's my professional hat talking there) the information that we've gathered in reading a book one time and reading it fairly quickly.

I know that I couldn't do that, though I freely admit that perhaps there are other and quicker minds than my own.

When I read your above statement about historians vs those acting on emotion, my first thought was to point out to you that you obviously have 2 historians available to you on this very thread and they are willing to teach us via their commentary. I would just like to know that you are willing to consider and appreciate the depth of their knowledge.

I told you this would be long. Don't say you weren't warned. ;-)

In the spirit of friendship and learning...

I think, as with the Riskas affair, it's an excess of enthusiasm.

[_Jersey Girl]

Philo Sofee, when we receive a new piece of information (whether we are 5 or 50 years old) through the world, experience, or even books, we take that piece of information and employ it via schematic processing a.k.a. accommodation and assimilation. That is to say, we take that particular piece of information and knowledge, and fit it into our existing mental construct and the effect that produces is a rippling effect that serves to modify and alter our existing sets of mental constructs.

That is how we take in information and how we learn. We do it from our first breath to our last. Our schemata is never a finished product.

That is what happened to you when you started receiving and considering contra information about your religion and now, to a greater extent, your ideas about god belief in general.

That's what happens when you read. That is why I encourage you to slow down.