Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Yes. I could have added 'using bayseian probabilities for ancient history' or 'bayseian probabilities as used by Carrier'.
The difference between me and Carrier is, when the gMark or gMatthew Jesus meets a point of the Rank-Raglan scale with a 10% agreement, I score a 0 but Carrier scores a 1.I am not impressed. That seems to be excessively literal-minded. If one interpreted Lord Raglan's hero profile like that for other legendary heroes, then it would be hard for anyone to have a high score.
I would score a 1 if the agreement is at least 50%.
Long ago, on one of Carrier blogs (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2010/ ... lgary.html ), I did a Rank-Raglan scoring of Romulus, Hercules and Jesus (according to gMark).
I found respectively 15.5, 14, 6.5 (in these days, I used fractional numbers which take in account on how close a hero's attributes meet each point of the scale).
I since increased gMark score to 8, because Jesus as "Son of God" in very close to son of a king.
So here we are. Using the same criteria, I did score legendary heroes more than Jesus according to gMark but close to my scoring according to gMatthew (13). However gMatthew was written later than gMark, so there are more myths (and also because gMatthew "covers" the conception up to the early years of Jesus).
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed