Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

EDITING ... The test that I am proposing as being appropriate here is the [wiki]Pearson%27s_chi-squared_test[/wiki] Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2) is a statistical test applied to sets of categorical data to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance. It...

To do what you want to do, you'd need a control group. I can think of a few possibilities. Thanks again for the exercise. I have had a look at the stats behind control groups and as a result of that have done some brief cobweb brushing away in order to understand your examples and mathematics. Usin...

I understand that the ideas which I have explored here and earlier have been antithetical to mainstream consensus and at the edge of being unsupported by an evaluation of the evidence. I have above formulated a statistical hypothesis test. This test attempts to compare the null hypothesis (mainstre...

I understand that the ideas which I have explored here and earlier have been antithetical to mainstream consensus and at the edge of being unsupported by an evaluation of the evidence. I have above formulated a statistical hypothesis test. This test attempts to compare the null hypothesis (mainstrea...

Also an earlier thread on this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1152



LC

In the following I have attempted to sketch a test of the OP using Statistical_hypothesis_testing : A statistical hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis that is testable on the basis of observing a process that is modeled via a set of random variables.[1] A statistical hypothesis test is a method of ...

The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article. Specifically which article did you mention? I thought you re-cited Nongbri's article. Sure Nongbri discusses the canonical papyri fragments, and not the non canonical fragments. ...

The misrepresentation is the implication that Nongbri even discusses any of the papyri that I mentioned in that article. Specifically which article did you mention? I thought you re-cited Nongbri's article. Sure Nongbri discusses the canonical papyri fragments, and not the non canonical fragments. ...

This paper is a critique of this theory and a defense of the historical Jesus. A fuller treatment of the existence of Jesus would involve much more detailed NT studies, of which mythicists in particular seem woefully unaware. I wonder how he would respond to Brodie's studies and ideas? Besides how ...

PK I would like to know why you assert that this article been cited inaccurately? If I have made an error I do not want to repeat it. I would like to see an explanation (of my error). I wasn't completely sure before, but now that you've made your quotations, it's completely clear that you have cited...