Reading Robert M. Price "Deconstructing Jesus"

[_lulu]

For those like me who are symbolic logic impaired, a link to the linked article by a New Testament scholar.

Because ultimately, as was said above, Bayes’ Theorem only helps if the human beings who utilize it do so correctly, fairly and logically.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... story.html

Kishkumen, have you read Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus? If so, what do think about his methodology?

Here is a review from a mathematician (and atheist) that I think highlights the most important problems. Carrier has a problem with asserting things with authority that he isn't properly trained in, in this case it is probability theory.

The final problem I want to focus on in chapter three, is the claim of BT special status. Carrier asserts it is both necessary and sufficient for any probabilistic reasoning about evidence. This is indicative of a confusion of nomenclature that permeates the book, at times he uses Bayes’s Theorem to mean probabilistic reasoning generally, then switches to using his idiosyncratic equation form (as if his claims about the former, therefore lead one to the latter necessarily), and at other times uses it as a stand in for Bayesian reasoning...

I like Bayes, it is a great heuristic, but it has its limits. There is a reason why this came out via Prometheus Books instead of elsewhere.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks for the link lulu! And to everyone who responded. Bayes Theory sounds potentially helpful in theory, but the few examples I've read sound a little like handwaving. I'll admit, the big, nasty equations have scared me off so far, but maybe braving them will be worth it.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

From what I’ve read of Bayesian Theory, it tends to be most useful when applied to problems with a single, discrete solution, like pinpointing the locations of shipwrecks, or the recovery of lost nuclear warheads. It was used for example to locate a Soviet strategic missile sub that sank off the coast of Hawaii in 1968. (This is the same sub that Howard Hughes raised in 1974, with the Glomar Explorer.)

Can Bayesian Theory be used to extract usable data from a search space defined by and populated with subjective perceptions of events that may or may not have occurred in a distant, poorly documented place and time?

I doubt it.

[_lulu]

Can Bayesian Theory be used to extract usable data from a search space defined by and populated with subjective perceptions of events that may or may not have occurred in a distant, poorly documented place and time?

I doubt it.

And the variables will all, or at least mostly, be supplied by the historian's judgment. On the other hand, it does provide a logic tree through which one could think through to aid in defining the issue(s) and reaching a conclusion. For example, comparing the relative probablity of various possible conclusions. But good historian would do that anyway, even without symbolic logic.

But no, it's not going to spit out answers like a computer.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

I think that’s a good way of looking at it, especially the part that says historians would do that anyway, with or without Bayesian Theory. I might also add that, at least for me, a good historian is one who can admit that certain facts are simply unknowable. I guess that’s why I tend to lose interest with theologically motivated historians who are unwilling to separate the historical Jesus from the supernatural Jesus, as if proving the existence of one is the equivalent of proving the existence of the other.

[_lulu]

I might also add that, at least for me, a good historian is one who can admit that certain facts are simply unknowable.

And then our egos get involved. Its a human failing.

[_Kishkumen]

I watched an hour-long video in which Carrier was talking about the problems with the claim that Jesus was a historical figure. Frankly, I was not all that impressed. Now, I understand that his paper was probably aimed at a popular audience, but some of his assumptions struck me as incredibly naïve.

For example, at one point he argued that because the book of Acts dropped mention of Mary and the family of Jesus, it was likely the case that Jesus did not exist. I am not certain why the narrative implausibilities of a book that Carrier calls fiction (citing Pervo's work) should be used to establish the problems with the historicity of Jesus on this point. The omission of the family of Jesus could be due to any number of factors that have nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.

Another issue he focused on was the trial scenes in Acts, where he noted that Paul and Stephen made no reference to the life of the historical Jesus in their defenses, but referred to him rather as a heavenly figure. By his reasoning, these men should have referred to Jesus' mortal life had he actually lived. I don't understand why that should be the case, if Acts is, as he agrees, fictional. If Acts is fictional, then what is important about the trial testimony, so to speak, of Paul and Stephen is its exemplarity. These scenes would have been written to serve as examples of how to face Roman authorities as faithful Christians, not to provide a plausible defense for Paul and Stephen in the narrative.

To give him his due, Carrier raises a number of interesting points, but in the particular talk I watched he spent a lot of time on Acts, which I don't see as terribly useful for him to make a case against Jesus' historicity.

[_Milesius]

Bob Price is affable. He is also a disingenuous crank. He once suggested to me that Irenaeus had a tradition that Jesus Christ lived under Claudius. I didn't know how to respond to that but when I found out that Irenaeus (or the incompetent exegete he relied on) based that solely on John 8:57 (which he took to mean that Jesus was close to 50 when he died, apparently in a Pyrrhic attempt to discredit Gnostics), it really solidified my unfavorable opinion of his scholarly abilities. By mentioning Claudius, he suggested that there was a level of historical detail to the "tradition" he attributed to Irenaeus that is nonexistent. He also said other ridiculous/incompetent things, such as claiming that Agapius of Hierapolis edited his 10th century, Arabic version of the Testimonium just like John Meier in modern times to remove the "faith-promoting" parts. That is absurd, however, because Muslims would not have objected to those parts (except the crucifixion, which they reject but is in his version), Jews of that era despised Josephus as a traitor (some still do) and Agapius would not have had to appease them anyway, and pagans in the 10th century Near East were rarer than hen's teeth. Another ridiculous thing he said is that the Jewish authorities would not have acted against Jesus with the Passover looming because it was against their laws. However, those laws were not codified until 200 A.D., so there is no way of knowing if they were in effect when Jesus walked the earth, and even if they were there is a specific allowance for someone who is leading people astray to be put to death even during Passover.

Incidentally, I am aware of Kishkumen's academic background; it gives him NO special insight into the New Testament or the historicity of Jesus. In fact, if anything, I would say that it gives him a false sense of knowledge in a discipline that exists apart from his. This is manifest in his affection for the crackpot Bob Price as well as his unknowledgeable remarks concerning the dates of the Gospels.

[_Milesius]

Kishkumen, have you read Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus? If so, what do think about his methodology?

Not only is Carrier incompetent in his own discipline (Ancient History) he is incompetent in mine as well (Statistics). Incidentally, he is also incompetent in Mathematics, as he demonstrated when he tried (and failed) to argue against the mathematician Russell Howell. Apparently, his sole purpose in life is to validate the work of Dunning and Kruger.

[_Chap]

It's a relief to see Milesius back on the board with his usual range of epithets up to full steam.

It reminds me that Mormon apologists are probably no more irascible and uncharitable at heart than are the partisans of 'mainstream' Christianity: it is just that I tend to see the former when they are subject to more serious challenges than are usually faced by your average argumentative Catholic.