• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 758 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:50 am

Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

#143: Jan. - Mar. 2016 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:After reading this thread the nicest thing I can say about Johan Ronnblom is that he is an ignorant moron.

Anyone who could seriously compare the historicity of Jesus and Alexander has rocks in their head. Alexander is real while Jesus is fictional. You need heavy dogmatic blinkers to be unable to see this simple historical observation. Ronnblom's line of thought comes from the parallel universe that imagines God created the world 6000 years ago.

As for the tortured arguments made in this thread by Ronnblom that somehow the Queen of Heaven is not the Queen of Heaven, that Jesus did not claim to bring a new covenant, that his burial place was well known, anyone who can make such statements with a straight face is an ignorant moron.

Flann's use of "Praise Be Upon Him" as an alleged comparison between Richard Carrier and Mohammed is highly offensive to logic. Islam is a backward dogma, while Carrier applies rigorous evidence and reason to examine the actual history of religion, in ways that faithful morons still try to suppress.
Mythicists tend to react emotionally to any criticism of their pet theories including those of Carrier and Doherty which they think are brilliant. I obviously don't agree with Johan's views on the historicity of Christ, but he does make valid criticisms of Carrier's version and use of the Rank/Raglan scale.
And he's not the only one. http://www.christthetao.blogspot.ie/201 ... or-is.html

You made the same kind of criticism of Tim O' Neill, Robert, claiming he was a "fundie". As I demonstrated O' Neill quite obviously is not,and is most likely an atheist as he says.

Actually it's "Peace be upon him". I've argued at length against Carrier's thesis on the various threads related to his book which can be found by clicking on his book on the homepage here. So I'm not going to repeat them all again here.

I was obviously being satirical about the ridiculous and unwarranted acclaim some mythicists pour on Carrier's absurd thesis, which uncritical support resembles an emotional rather than rational support of Carrier and his thesis.

www.rightreason.org/2012/does-richard-carrier-exist/
JohanRonnblom
Eligible to vote in book polls!
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:53 pm
7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: I was obviously being satirical about the ridiculous and unwarranted acclaim some mythicists pour on Carrier's absurd thesis, which uncritical support resembles an emotional rather than rational support of Carrier and his thesis.

http://www.rightreason.org/2012/does-ri ... ier-exist/
The problem with your satire is that you ignore all the evidence. Yes, in principle you could claim that Carrier is 'unlikely' given some arbitrarily limited information. For instance, you argue that it is unlikely that an historian would be a Jesus mythicist. True, although it is also unlikely that an historian would argue that Jesus was historical - I have searched for years and have not been able to find a single historian who argues this point in a book, scholarly article or similar (the closest being Michael Grant in 1977, but it is a personal reflection on the Gospels, not a work of history). The vast, vast majority of historians are simply silent on the issue, while those arguing for the historicity of Jesus for some reason seem compelled to mislabel non-historian experts as historians, when they are not by any reasonable definition (ie, an historian is someone with a degree in history, obtained from a faculty specializing in history, and/or someone who has repeatedly published in historical academic journals).

But let's ignore that and, yes, you can arrive at a very low prior probability for Carrier existing. This does not in any way invalidate the method, because the reason we should believe Carrier does exist is that we have massive evidence that he does. We have videos on Youtube, we can easily locate hundreds of people who have met him, and so on. If, indeed, we had none of that, yes then it would be very reasonable to doubt that a person with such uncommon characteristics would exist.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

JohanRonnblom wrote:As I wrote on my blog years ago, I'm about 90% certain that Jesus never existed as an historical person. Most likely, he started out as a teacher or messenger whom influential leaders in the proto-Christian sect claimed to appear in their visions. The Gospels are religious fables, never intended as history, but rather to convey deeper religious truths (according to the writers, not according to me). This is apparent from the style of writing, and also from the fact that the Gospel authors obviously had no problem changing around details large and small about the supposed life of Jesus. That works for fables, not for history.
Hi Johan. I'm a bit confused about your view here. If you say that he (Jesus) started out as a teacher or messenger,then he must have been a real historical person.
How do you know the gospels were never intended as history,doesn't Luke's prologue to his gospel and Acts clearly contradict this? Christianity is obviously theistic with a supernatural God intervening in history with real historical people involved such as Pilate,Herod, Annas and Caiphas,John the Baptist and apostles like Peter,James,John and of course Jesus himself.

According to the writers Jesus and these others were real historical people in real places and at real times and they are presented as real events albeit there are miracles recorded but that is entirely consistent with their supernatural theistic worldview.

The writer of the gospel of John claims to have been an eyewitness and that his testimony is true. So I don't see that they intended any other understanding of their writings.
How does the stlye of writing indicate that they intended otherwise? That they had a theological intent is clear but that doesn't detract from their claim that these were real events that occurred.
They may arrange events thematically for theological reasons and everything may not be exactly sequential so there is a broad beginning,middle and ending but their arrangement itself does not detract from the fact that they are claiming these events took place historically.
JohanRonnblom wrote:The problem with your satire is that you ignore all the evidence. Yes, in principle you could claim that Carrier is 'unlikely' given some arbitrarily limited information. For instance, you argue that it is unlikely that an historian would be a Jesus mythicist. True, although it is also unlikely that an historian would argue that Jesus was historical - I have searched for years and have not been able to find a single historian who argues this point in a book, scholarly article or similar (the closest being Michael Grant in 1977, but it is a personal reflection on the Gospels, not a work of history). The vast, vast majority of historians are simply silent on the issue, while those arguing for the historicity of Jesus for some reason seem compelled to mislabel non-historian experts as historians, when they are not by any reasonable definition (ie, an historian is someone with a degree in history, obtained from a faculty specializing in history, and/or someone who has repeatedly published in historical academic journals).
Of course the writers of the satire don't believe that Carrier does not exist. There may be some questions on how prior probabilities are determined and the subjective nature of the exercise. Carrier clearly picks and chooses what he uses or ignores to fit his prior belief which is actually driven by his overall thesis. And in fact his desire to disprove the historical existence of Jesus may have other psychological explanations, given his very obvious antipathy to Christianity.
What accredited historians argue for a non historical mythical Christ?Do scholars of Tacitus or Josephus agree with Carrier and the mythicists?

As far as the overall arguments on the subject goes I've argued specifically against Carrier's view here but many of the same arguments apply to elements of mythicism generally.
It's a big subject and I've engaged with a lot of these arguments quite extensively here and am not inclined to repeat them all again. So you can have a look through the threads on Carrier's book to see these if you are interested,Johan.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

JohanRonnblom wrote:
DB Roy wrote: Why don’t you stop right here and tell us what it is you believe about Jesus Christ.
As I wrote on my blog years ago, I'm about 90% certain that Jesus never existed as an historical person. Most likely, he started out as a teacher or messenger whom influential leaders in the proto-Christian sect claimed to appear in their visions. The Gospels are religious fables, never intended as history, but rather to convey deeper religious truths (according to the writers, not according to me). This is apparent from the style of writing, and also from the fact that the Gospel authors obviously had no problem changing around details large and small about the supposed life of Jesus. That works for fables, not for history.
Ok, that works for me.
DB Roy wrote: I mean, since Raglan wasn’t a historian, why bother with his little scale?

Because Carrier used it. If you read my original blog post, I've explained this already, so no point repeating it here.
That's fine, you can take issue with Carrier all you want to as long you're not trying to hand me that Jesus was historical. You don't have to agree with every little thing the man says. Robert Price is a pretty knowledgeable guy but he thinks Mike Huckabee is "brilliant" and should be president and the Sarah Palin should be our first female president and he now supports Trump. I don't know if you are American or not but you might find that surprising that Price would hold these views. So while I like his works on religion, I can't stand his politics. Nobody has to agree with anybody about every little thing.
Finally, I would recommend that you'd try to be a little nicer, unless your purpose is to scare away all sane and civilized people from this board.
I have no idea what you're talking about but we're good. You seem to be a reasonable chap and I have nothing more to say. I don't know enough about Rank-Raglan to be a good devil's advocate--sorry.
Last edited by DB Roy on Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

JohanRonnblom wrote:
Flann 5 wrote: I was obviously being satirical about the ridiculous and unwarranted acclaim some mythicists pour on Carrier's absurd thesis, which uncritical support resembles an emotional rather than rational support of Carrier and his thesis.

http://www.rightreason.org/2012/does-ri ... ier-exist/
The problem with your satire is that you ignore all the evidence. Yes, in principle you could claim that Carrier is 'unlikely' given some arbitrarily limited information. For instance, you argue that it is unlikely that an historian would be a Jesus mythicist. True, although it is also unlikely that an historian would argue that Jesus was historical - I have searched for years and have not been able to find a single historian who argues this point in a book, scholarly article or similar (the closest being Michael Grant in 1977, but it is a personal reflection on the Gospels, not a work of history). The vast, vast majority of historians are simply silent on the issue, while those arguing for the historicity of Jesus for some reason seem compelled to mislabel non-historian experts as historians, when they are not by any reasonable definition (ie, an historian is someone with a degree in history, obtained from a faculty specializing in history, and/or someone who has repeatedly published in historical academic journals).

But let's ignore that and, yes, you can arrive at a very low prior probability for Carrier existing. This does not in any way invalidate the method, because the reason we should believe Carrier does exist is that we have massive evidence that he does. We have videos on Youtube, we can easily locate hundreds of people who have met him, and so on. If, indeed, we had none of that, yes then it would be very reasonable to doubt that a person with such uncommon characteristics would exist.
What you'll find from Flann5 and some others here is that they don't get it. Bayesian analysis they simply cannot grasp. You explain it to them and the next post they are right back at it again as though you had explained nothing. I stopped playing the game because you're just explaining the same position over and over again and they are either not very bright or they are amusing themselves making you jump through hoops. I think they actually believe that if they wear you down to the point where you just give up and stop arguing your position then that means they won. Either way, nothing you say will sink in very far or they'd have to confront the truth which they cannot do. The idea of trying to prove a low probability for Carrier's existence is an example of this stupidity. The probability is obviously very high but they don't get it. I don't know how they couldn't get it but they don't.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:What you'll find from Flann5 and some others here is that they don't get it. Bayesian analysis they simply cannot grasp. You explain it to them and the next post they are right back at it again as though you had explained nothing. I stopped playing the game because you're just explaining the same position over and over again and they are either not very bright or they are amusing themselves making you jump through hoops. I think they actually believe that if they wear you down to the point where you just give up and stop arguing your position then that means they won. Either way, nothing you say will sink in very far or they'd have to confront the truth which they cannot do. The idea of trying to prove a low probability for Carrier's existence is an example of this stupidity. The probability is obviously very high but they don't get it. I don't know how they couldn't get it but they don't.
I don't claim to be an expert on Bayes theorem D.B. but I notice that many who are expert are not impressed with Carrier's use of this to "prove history" as he puts it. He was totally refuted by cosmologist Luke Barnes in relation to fine tuning and his misuse of probabilties there.

There is a lot of subjectivity involved in determining parameters and assigning numbers to them. Carrier maintains the gospels are myths and he allegorizes them based on his view that they are symbolic not historical. A lot of this is quite fanciful and very subjective. In fact an astro-theologist like you D.B.Roy would interpret the same passages entirely differently to Carrier making them an allegory of the sun and it's motions through the signs of the zodiac.

This kind of wildly conflicting not to mention bizarre result is inevitable once one abandons normal hermenutical principles of interpretation for one pet theory or another.
Bayes theorem is a rather tedious method of doing history and useful for insomniacs or those who wish to deceive themselves that their biases are 'scientifically' supported.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305750452/Ri ... y-of-Jesus

There is in fact a good case that the gospels are of the genre of ancient historical biography. Carrier maintains the gospels are myth and Jesus therefore a mythical not historical character. Luke's gospel has Acts as it's sequel yet here Carrier says this is historical fiction.

He can't be consistent because if he was to say that this obvious sequel to the gospel was myth he would have to conclude by parity of reasoning that it's principal character Paul was also mythical not historical. But his thesis won't allow this as Paul must be historical in order to "hallucinate" the "mythical sub-lunar Jesus".
That is the calibre of 'reasoning' we get from Carrier. http://www.jesusevidences.com/ntgospelsbiographies.php
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Oct 23, 2016 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: that Jesus did not claim to bring a new covenant,
Matt 5:17-18 "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished."

But we are not talking about a 'covenant'. Raglan is interested in the development of a body of laws, not some spiritual tacit agreement. There is simply no such body of laws associated with Jesus. Beyond the 'golden rule', which is a philosophical principle, legally useless, there are only a few cases of Jesus sayings that can be interpreted even as moral guidance, and I'm not aware of anything that could pass for a law, much less a whole body of laws.
But Jesus also stated in Matthew 16:18. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

We need to keep in mind that these writings were doctored and revised countless times and so contradictions pop up. So was Jesus fulfilling the law or was he founding his own church? Both statements are put into his mouth. It's problematic to say that Jesus wasn't replacing the law when he also states up front that he is founding his own church. Especially the statement that the gates of Hades will not prevail against as this is clearly not a Jewish belief. The best we can do at this point is to suppose that Jesus had a different take on how the laws are to be interpreted such that he was splintering off to form his own church but that's really saying he was replacing the law with his own especially when we acknowledge that churches do not serve the same functions as a synagogue.

The standard Christian explanation goes as follows:

It is especially important to note how the word is used in Matthew 5:17. In this context, “abolish” is set in opposition to “fulfill.” Christ came “...not to abolish, but to fulfill.” Jesus did not come to this earth for the purpose of acting as an opponent of the law. His goal was not to prevent its fulfillment. Rather, He revered it, loved it, obeyed it, and brought it to fruition. He fulfilled the law’s prophetic utterances regarding Himself (Luke 24:44). Christ fulfilled the demands of the Mosaic law, which called for perfect obedience under threat of a “curse” (see Galatians 3:10, 13). In this sense, the law’s divine design will ever have an abiding effect. It will always accomplish the purpose for which it was given.

If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.

https://gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

In other words, Jesus fulfilled the law so he could then replace it.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

JohanRonnblom wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote: As for the tortured arguments made in this thread by Ronnblom that somehow the Queen of Heaven is not the Queen of Heaven,
Today sometimes, but this is a modern tradition, not found in the Bible.
Garbage argument. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_ ... ical_basis
JohanRonnblom wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote: that Jesus did not claim to bring a new covenant,
Matt 5:17-18 "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished."

But we are not talking about a 'covenant'. Raglan is interested in the development of a body of laws, not some spiritual tacit agreement. There is simply no such body of laws associated with Jesus. Beyond the 'golden rule', which is a philosophical principle, legally useless, there are only a few cases of Jesus sayings that can be interpreted even as moral guidance, and I'm not aware of anything that could pass for a law, much less a whole body of laws.
Garbage argument. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant
JohanRonnblom wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote: that his burial place was well known
Matt 27:57-66, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-54.

I probably need to point out to you that it was well known in the story, obviously I believe this story is fiction through and through. I'm not really sure you understand what the discussion is even about.
Garbage argument again. You are just twisting the original phrase 'body not buried' like a typical fundy.
JohanRonnblom
Eligible to vote in book polls!
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:53 pm
7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:I'm a bit confused about your view here. If you say that he (Jesus) started out as a teacher or messenger,then he must have been a real historical person.
No. This is a very common mistake among people defending historicity. They think that if someone is a teacher, or is made of flesh, or born of a woman, or whatever, then they must have lived on Earth. It's very straightforward: In his epistles, which are the earliest Christian sources we have, Paul cites a lot of things he learned from Jesus. But he is very clear that he learned all these things through visions of Jesus. Historicists, of course, maintain that Jesus had also previously teached on Earth. But we find no traces of this in Paul's epistles. Historicists believe that first Jesus taught on Earth, then through visions. I believe he first (was believed to have) taught through visions, and never taught anything on Earth.
Flann 5 wrote:How do you know the gospels were never intended as history,doesn't Luke's prologue to his gospel and Acts clearly contradict this?
As for the introduction to 'Luke', not really. It's not an uncommon storytelling technique to preface works of fiction with similar introductions. As for Acts, quite the contrary, it does not fit in with the Gospels and seems to be a very different kind of document.
Flann 5 wrote: Christianity is obviously theistic with a supernatural God intervening in history with real historical people involved such as Pilate,Herod, Annas and Caiphas,John the Baptist and apostles like Peter,James,John and of course Jesus himself.
The stories of Sherlock Holmes also intervene in history, involving real historical people. As do many, many other fictional stories. The Gospels are a type of fable which is intervowen into recent history. Just like it is today quite popular to write stories set in the last century or so.
Flann 5 wrote: According to the writers Jesus and these others were real historical people in real places and at real times and they are presented as real events albeit there are miracles recorded but that is entirely consistent with their supernatural theistic worldview.
We have no idea who these writers were. I obviously disagree that these authors claimed that Jesus etc were real historical people. I think that upon a dispassionate reading, it is clear that they are intended to be allegorical through and through. We see this in many ways:
1. The composition of the stories do not follow an externally forced narrative (ie reporting something that really happened) but are built around elements of symmetry, reversed expectations, and other such motifs that are typical for allegorical fiction but really don't happen in real life.
2. The people featured in the stories do not act like actual people, but rather as storytelling props. For instance, the disciples immediately leave their former lives to follow Jesus without almost any persuasion, they then continue to act flabbergasted when Jesus performs miracles they have already seen before, they ask stupid questions that make no sense other than as a way to bring the story forward, etc.
3. The massive differences between the Gospels are very, very hard to explain if the writers were supposed to have believed that the stories were true. Why, in that case, did they not make any attempt to reconcile the differences, or even acknowledge them? On the other hand, if they were intended as allegorical fiction, there is no problem. "Matthew" read "Mark" and liked it, but thought some things could be improved. "Luke" read these and wanted to do some more changes and additions. The many authors of apocryphal Gospels did the same, but their works were ultimately not considered worthy.
Flann 5 wrote: The writer of the gospel of John claims to have been an eyewitness and that his testimony is true. So I don't see that they intended any other understanding of their writings.
And yet, most scholars (historicists, mind you) agree that John is the least historically reliable of the Gospels, and do not believe that the author was an eyewitness. Again, it is not uncommon for works of fiction to contain similar statements. To be very clear, I'm sure the author of "John" honestly believed to be writing great truths, although in an allegorical form.
Flann 5 wrote: What accredited historians argue for a non historical mythical Christ?
I have only found two: Carrier and a Swedish historian called Per Mikael Nilsson. But I have found zero who argue in an historical work, such as a book, academical journal or similar, that Jesus was historical. I would really love to read someone who does, but I have searched for many years and not found any. Michael Grant was not an accredited historian but a self-described 'freelancer' who nevertheless published a large number of popular books on history, but his book on Jesus uses no other sources than the Gospels and are really just his private reflections (nothing wrong with that of course).
Flann 5 wrote: Do scholars of Tacitus or Josephus agree with Carrier and the mythicists?
That really depends on the issue at hand, but generally Carrier agrees with those scholars, not the other way around. Carrier's argument relies on no interpretation of these documents that is not widely accepted among scholars. On the other hand, such scholars (when they are historians) have, to my knowledge, rarely voiced any opinion on the historicity of Jesus.
JohanRonnblom
Eligible to vote in book polls!
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:53 pm
7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: I don't claim to be an expert on Bayes theorem D.B. but I notice that many who are expert are not impressed with Carrier's use of this to "prove history" as he puts it. He was totally refuted by cosmologist Luke Barnes in relation to fine tuning and his misuse of probabilties there.
I'm not really interested in that debate (it's about as interesting to me as the debate over how we can know that pink elephants love chocolate), but I know enough math that I think I can vouch or Dr Carrier's overall usage of Bayes' Theorem in OtHoJC. There may be minor nitpicks, but nothing that completely invalidates the argument. Math is not the way to refute OtHoJC.
Flann 5 wrote: There is a lot of subjectivity involved in determining parameters and assigning numbers to them.
But none of that subjectivity disappears just because you refuse to use numbers. While I'm not totally sold on Bayes' Theorem, I think one clear blessing is that it forces authors to tell us clearly how sure they think they are about something. If they don't tell us, or if they only use vague phrases like 'probably', their subjectivity is only hidden, not avoided.

So for instance, Carrier's use of numbers makes it easy for me to see where I disagree with him: he thinks the Rank-Raglan mythotype similarities are very persuasive, something I completely disagree with. He thinks Paul's epistles may be compatible with historicism, I disagree. By using numbers, he exposes himself to not just be shown to be wrong on some detail, but to be shown wrong on details he has explicitly claimed are very important. I find this very appealing.

In contrast, when I read Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, I found that he basically just guesses something based on little to no information. Then he uses that guess to construct another guess, and so on, until he has answered all the questions he wants to answer. If he had used Bayes' Theorem, it would have become clear that the combined probability of these later guesses are so low as to be completely meaningless, unless he is absolutely certain of the earlier conclusions, which he isn't.
Flann 5 wrote: He can't be consistent because if he was to say that this obvious sequel to the gospel was myth he would have to conclude by parity of reasoning that it's principal character Paul was also mythical not historical.
Why? That makes no sense. We have documents written by Paul, and they read like actual letters. I'm aware of no plausible theory for how these letters would have been created unless they were written by Paul (some epistles are forged of course, but I'm talking about those considered genuine).
Post Reply

Return to “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt - by Richard Carrier”