Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Analytics]

OK, help me out here. The review I linked seems to me to say that Carrier actually blows his application of Baye's:

Carrier correctly states that he is allowed to divide content between evidence and background knowledge any way he chooses, provided he is consistent. But then fails to do so throughout the book. For example on page 51 is an explanation of a ‘prior’ probability which explicitly includes the evidence in the prior, and therefore presumably in the background knowledge (emphasis original):

“the measure of how ‘typical’ our proposed explanations is a measure of how often that kind of evidence has that kind of explanation. Formally this is called the prior”

Going on to say (emphasis original):

"For example, if someone claims they were struck by lightning five times … the prior probabilty they are telling the truth is not the probability of being struck by lightning five times, but the probability that someone in general who claims such a thing would be telling the truth."

This is not wrong, per se, but highly bizarre. One can certainly bundle the claim and the event like that, but if you do so Bayes’s Theorem cannot be used to calculate the probability that the claim is true based on that evidence. The quote is valid, but highly misleading in a book which is seeking to examine the historicity of documentary claims.

If he blows it this badly, how can his methodology and results be sound?

Honestly, from the quote I'm not sure I understand Carrier's point was in this specific paragraph, nor do I understand exactly what the reviewer is taking issue with. A quote is "valid" and "not wrong, per se," yet is "highly misleading?" I can't comment on it more without reading the passage in context.

But isn't focusing on one error or bad example and then using it dismiss the work in its entirety the alleged go-to strategy of Classic Farms?

In any case, in the sciences that rely upon statistical inference, there have been debates going on for decades among members of the Bayesian Cult that think all statistical inference should be framed in Bayesian terms, and others that think Bayes' Theorem is but one specialized tool in a toolbox filled with many other things. 20 years ago I took an Econometrics course, and the teacher gave us a text that took the then-radical position that all Econometric inference should be done from a Bayesian framework. Now, there are probably over a dozen textbooks in print on Bayesian Econometrics.

Having lived through the Bayesian debate in that context and having been indoctrinated by the side that is now winning, I've become comfortable with the debate and confident in the Bayesian position. It's transparent to me that questions like "Did the historical Jesus exist" fit very neatly into the type of Bayesian inference that I believe is the best approach. I argued for that on the first page of this thread before I had even heard of Richard Carrier. In what I've read so far in On the Historicity of Jesus, Carrier is doing a decent job with the math.

[_Kishkumen]

Carrier correctly states that he is allowed to divide content between evidence and background knowledge any way he chooses, provided he is consistent. But then fails to do so throughout the book.

But isn't focusing on one error or bad example and then using it dismiss the work in its entirety the alleged go-to strategy of Classic Farms?

My understanding is that the reviewer is saying that Carrier is inconsistent in dividing content between evidence and background throughout the work. If true, that sounds very problematic, i.e., not just a single error but a methodological problem.

Anyhow, perhaps one day I will attempt to grapple with Bayesian analysis. My sense is that Carrier is probably not the best choice for me. I would prefer an author who postures less and avoids needless elaborations for the sake of appearing sophisticated. I am glad that he does not push the idea that Jesus did not exist, though I would have to say his conclusion about the gospels--that they offer no evidence one way or the other on the question--sounds idiotic on its face.

They offer evidence, or else he has nothing to evaluate. They offer evidence in the affirmative inasmuch as they contain historical facts--such as the fact that Pilate was the governor of Judea--that would tend to support the accuracy of at least some of the content, and evidence against inasmuch as there are numerous inconsistencies, impossibilities, and obvious fabrications.

Still, I don't want to waste any more time on this untill I can truly understand how Bayesian analysis can be applied to historical events.

[_Symmachus]

Most of what you guys said seemed to be based upon speculations of what Carrier's arguments are and how they work. It's like you are operating under the conception that Bayesian analysis (at least in Carrier style) is geared towards proving historical people don't exist.

I'm operating under the conception that in order to give a sound answer to the question "which hypothesis better fits the data" you have to understand the data. Is that a wrong conception? I was pointing out the ways in which Carrier seems drastically to misunderstand the data, as was Kish. To endorse your distinction by borrowing it, his arguments may be valid within the parameters of Bayesian probability, but I am inclined to think they are not sound, since they basically would require us to throw out most about what we know (or think we know) about the ancient Mediterranean. That would be fine—if he had something better to replace all of it with, but he doesn't. It answers one question at the cost of thousands of others.

You may have the most state-of-the-art oven in your kitchen and all its parts might work flawlessly, but if you bake a pile of crap at 450 degrees for an hour, it's not going to come out as a cake; it will still be a pile of crap. The baking process might be valid for baking cake, but the ingredients really do matter. One doesn't need to know anything about how ovens work to tell the difference between crap and cake batter. Indeed, an understanding of oven technology, no matter how advanced, is no help at all in discerning that most crucial of differences.

The fact that experts in cake batter are overwhelmingly of the opinion that Carrier is putting crap rather than cake batter into the oven should be a red flag for those who are persuaded by his confections, whatever the virtues of the oven might be and no matter how adept he is at using it.

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.

.

I would say that someone like Paula Frederiksen represents the mainstream view of Jesus among scholars, or at least a very common one, but I don't think she bothers trying to prove his existence and takes it as a given. And anything you can by E.P. Sanders will be worth your while. Both have books about Jesus in his historical contexts for non-scholarly audiences that are inexpensive and non-technical. Maybe also Geza Vermes would be worth looking at.

By the way, all of them strongly emphasize the Jewish context of Jesus. This of course creates another problem for mythicists whose Jesus really can't fit earlier than the mid second century (see Kish's comments above). It means that the conspiracy of mythicists must really have spent some time studying pre-70 Judaism in Palestine, in all its raucous and antagonistic diversity. That would have been hard to do first hand in the second century, since most of the diversity had been obliterated. So they must have used Josephus as a source (but not too closely!). How clever. Why you'd go through the trouble of inventing a human back story for a god by deeply (very deeply) embedding it in the rural Judaism of pre-70 Palestine when your religious movement has few Jewish adherents and is mostly Greek-speaking pork-eaters with little interest in circumcision is another mystery. I wonder what the probability of that having happened is.

Actually I don't. It's not just improbable; it's implausible. But it would be required to harmonize the chronological issues and the deeply Jewish character of the Gospels (and a certain kind of Judaism at that).

[_Kishkumen]

I'm operating under the conception that in order to give a sound answer to the question "which hypothesis better fits the data" you have to understand the data. Is that a wrong conception? I was pointing out the ways in which Carrier seems drastically to misunderstand the data, as was Kish. To endorse your distinction by borrowing it, his arguments may be valid within the parameters of Bayesian probability, but I am inclined to think they are not sound, since they basically would require us to throw out most about what we know (or think we know) about the ancient Mediterranean. That would be fine—if he had something better to replace all of it with, but he doesn't. It answers one question at the cost of thousands of others.

You may have the most state-of-the-art oven in your kitchen and all its parts might work flawlessly, but if you bake a pile of crap at 450 degrees for an hour, it's not going to come out as a cake; it will still be a pile of crap. The baking process might be valid for baking cake, but the ingredients really do matter. One doesn't need to know anything about how ovens work to tell the difference between crap and cake batter. Indeed, an understanding of oven technology, no matter how advanced, is no help at all in discerning that most crucial of differences.

The fact that experts in cake batter are overwhelmingly of the opinion that Carrier is putting crap rather than cake batter into the oven should be a red flag for those who are persuaded by his confections, whatever the virtues of the oven might be and no matter how adept he is at using it.

Very well put, consul. The devil is definitely in the details here, and I am concerned when mythicists take their collection of strained interpretations as a compelling case for the non-existence of a historical Jesus. It is reminds me of the repackaging of subprime mortgages into derivatives of Byzantine mathematical complexity. It may look attractive on the surface, but it also may just be a crap sandwich waiting to blow up in your face. Each risky loan is a strained argument in favor of the mythical Jesus. Having found that there are interesting, albeit not mysterious, problems surrounding the historical facts about Jesus, such as the lack of good historical attestation close to his lifetime, mythicists swallow a camel of even more questionable hypotheses like the highly dubious theories of Doherty.

[_Maksutov]

I would say that someone like Paula Frederiksen represents the mainstream view of Jesus among scholars, or at least a very common one, but I don't think she bothers trying to prove his existence and takes it as a given. And anything you can by E.P. Sanders will be worth your while. Both have books about Jesus in his historical contexts for non-scholarly audiences that are inexpensive and non-technical. Maybe also Geza Vermes would be worth looking at.

Thank you, Symmachus. I am indebted to you.

[_Analytics]

But isn't focusing on one error or bad example and then using it dismiss the work in its entirety the alleged go-to strategy of Classic Farms?

My understanding is that the reviewer is saying that Carrier is inconsistent in dividing content between evidence and background throughout the work. If true, that sounds very problematic, i.e., not just a single error but a methodological problem.

Yes, that is what he said, but I don't understand how his quote supports this, because I can't tell from the quote what is the "evidence" and what is the "background" in the hypothetical example Carrier is using to make his point (and the specific point he was trying to make with this example is also unclear from the quote). Keeping it in context, it is an alleged error (of the type that is nevertheless "valid" and "not wrong, per se"), that contradicts a rule that Carrier had already pointed out.

I would have to say his conclusion about the gospels--that they offer no evidence one way or the other on the question--sounds idiotic on its face.

They offer evidence, or else he has nothing to evaluate. They offer evidence in the affirmative inasmuch as they contain historical facts--such as the fact that Pilate was the governor of Judea--that would tend to support the accuracy of at least some of the content, and evidence against inasmuch as there are numerous inconsistencies, impossibilities, and obvious fabrications.

As example of how I see this, what if we were evaluating the claim that the parable of the Good Samaritan is based upon an actual historic account of a historical good Samaritan.

I'd say the purpose of the Good Samaritan is to make a point about morality, not to give an accurate account of actual historical events or relay the stories of witnesses. Because of that, the parable itself offers no evidence one way or the other regarding whether the Good Samaritan was an actual historical figure.

Applying your line of reasoning to this example, you'd say that's idiotic on the face. The fact that Samaritans, sects of Jews, Jerusalem, and Jericho exist are all evidence that the Good Samaritan exists historically, and the fact that the story doesn't say anything implausible adds even more credibility. Applying a previous argument you used for the historicity of Jesus, you'd go on to ask why make up a story about a fictional Samaritan, when it would be so much easier to just tell a story about one of the real Samaritans that traveled from Jericho.

I'd reply that like the Gospels, the actual purpose of the parable is to teach gospel truths, not relate history. Like the Gospels, the parable of the Good Samarian contains certain elements and details were obviously made up for dramatic effect and to facilitate the actual purpose of the text--to convey a religious message. I'd then point out that if you are making up details of a story in order to convey a message, it's easier to attach the story to a fictional character rather than a real one.

[_Kishkumen]

Analytics, your analogy really doesn't work. There is a big difference between Jesus sharing a parable and a gospel. The generic difference between the two is crucial to appreciating the content of each. If you can produce an inscription attesting to the activities of the Good Samaritan, then I'm all ears. But to compare the bare stock figures and stereotypes of parables with the wealth of detail in the gospels is bizarre. New Testament parables are likely rooted in Old Testament mashalim. Such anecdotes are designed to convey a relatively simple moral lesson. You really can't convincingly compare the two forms as though they were essentially the same thing.

[_Analytics]

Most of what you guys said seemed to be based upon speculations of what Carrier's arguments are and how they work. It's like you are operating under the conception that Bayesian analysis (at least in Carrier style) is geared towards proving historical people don't exist.

I'm operating under the conception that in order to give a sound answer to the question "which hypothesis better fits the data" you have to understand the data. Is that a wrong conception?

Point taken. I’ve repeated over and over that the conversation about Bayesian reasoning itself has been a serious distraction from the actual evidence.

I was pointing out the ways in which Carrier seems drastically to misunderstand the data, as was Kish.

Carrier spends about 200 pages describing 46 discrete “elements” of background knowledge that he thinks are required in order to understand the context of the times and nature of the evidence. He set it up this way so that each element can be discussed and evaluated on its own merits. Since you think he drastically misunderstands the data, it would be helpful if you gave a couple examples by number of elements he is wrong about, or other elements that are required to understand but that he disregards.

I’m not trying to be snarky here. I just don’t see any correlation between how you think Carrier allegedly misunderstands the data and what he says in his book.

To endorse your distinction by borrowing it, his arguments may be valid within the parameters of Bayesian probability, but I am inclined to think they are not sound, since they basically would require us to throw out most about what we know (or think we know) about the ancient Mediterranean.

If I made 46 posts at a rate of, say, 3 a week, each dedicated to one of his numbered “elements,” would you read them and offer some indication of the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim?

You could then add additional elements of your own that he overlooks.

The fact that experts in cake batter are overwhelmingly of the opinion that Carrier is putting crap rather than cake batter into the oven should be a red flag for those who are persuaded by his confections, whatever the virtues of the oven might be and no matter how adept he is at using it.

Yes, of course that is a red flag. But if Carrier were wrong, it would be nice for somebody to create a compelling rebuttal. The fact that nobody seems willing or able to do so is another flag in its own right.

[_Analytics]

Analytics, your analogy really doesn't work. There is a big difference between Jesus sharing a parable and a gospel. The generic difference between the two is crucial to appreciating the content of each. If you can produce an inscription attesting to the activities of the Good Samaritan, then I'm all ears. But to compare the bare stock figures and stereotypes of parables with the wealth of detail in the gospels is bizarre. New Testament parables are likely rooted in Old Testament mashalim. Such anecdotes are designed to convey a relatively simple moral lesson. You really can't convincingly compare the two forms as though they were essentially the same thing.

Of course it isn't a perfect analogy. My argument though is that the gospels don't sound like a historian compiling various oral traditions. They don't sound like a historian trying to convey what actually happened. They sound like complex stories written for a specific religious purpose that contain lots and lots of made-up elements. You-know-who wrote a few dozen pages that argue this in detail. The argument makes sense to me, which is why I tend to agree that the gospels don't offer evidence one way or the other about Jesus' existence.

If you concede that the writers didn't hesitate to make up details to support the cases they were advocating, how can you trust any of it without independent verification?

The best counter-argument I can think of to this is the inclusion of details that don't serve any point. Nazareth is a good example--if the story is supposed to be about a Messiah from Bethlehem, why include the messy detail of him being from Nazareth with an strained story of how he was really born in Bethlehem?

I'm still thinking a lot about this one, but that's where I'm at.

[_Kishkumen]

I am glad you see that parables make a poor comparison. We can leave that aside. I would also say that there are good reasons to dismiss the material regarding the nativity and childhood of Jesus. It is later and obviously contrived. On the other hand, as I tried to show above, although the material itself is not reliable, it is the case that important figures became the subjects of such childhood myths and divine signs. Bethlehem is not the problem it appears to be.

On the other hand we have the evidence of Jesus having been executed by Pilate. Not only is Pilate a figure whose historical existence is backed up by Philo and Josephus, he is also attested in an inscription. His execution of Jesus is consistent with his other activities and it is supported by mentions in Josephus and Tacitus.

While I understand the problems with the Testimonium Flavianum, it is likely, according to the witness of Origen, that Josephus did mention Jesus, and that his account was embellished by a later interpelator. The Tacitus mention seems to me to be a stronger case. Tacitus researched Judaism and Palestine for his account of the Jewish War in his Histories. He could have encountered the information about Christus and Pilate in that process.

In Josephus' Antiquities we also have strong evidence for John the Baptist and his death at the hands of Herod.

All of these things should, in my view contribute to the case for Jesus' historical existence. It is not at all like telling a moralizing anecdote about a Good Samaritan.