Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[ghost]

So you weren't really interested in having your question answered, merely in pounding the drum for your pet theory through every thread possible

Not true. You are misinterpreting me in this case, and I don't know exactly why. I was indeed interested in having my question answered, and still am in case anyone has anything else to add. The reason I frequently mention the theory is because I do indeed think it's the most important theory in the study of Christian origins, and I think it's substantiated by evidence and logic to the point where it can be considered not just a theory, but actually a fact. I know it sounds crazy, at least at first, but it is the empirical truth in the end.

Now in the case of Carrier this is indeed relevant because Carrier is telling only half the truth. He is right that Jesus never existed, but he is wrong in that he fails to point out that the Jesus myth is based on the Caesar bio.

This is why I strongly recommend to everyone on this forum to take the time to browse Carotta's website, which is free-of-charge and open-access.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Here's something I've been wondering about. Where does Richard Carrier get his 33% probability of historicity from? What algorithm does he use and what data does he work from?

Simplistically speaking, he compares the Jesus story to other similar stories and sees what proportion of those stories are historical or mythical. So in this case it's one third historical.

The 33% prior probability does come from something like that - by assigning Jesus to the 'conveniently named figures' reference class he estimates how many such figures are historical and how many are mythical, and comes up with a figure that it's twice as likely for such a figure to be mythical - i.e. 2 to 1 = 33% for being historical.

But the majority of his work is determining the consequent probability which he does by evaluating the evidence against his two theories :
1. minimal Jesus historicity
2. minimal Jesus mythology
and determining how likely the evidence would look like it does for each theory.

(See
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14503
for these two theories.)

From this he gets two figures -
the best case for Jesus historicity comes to 32%
the most likely case for Jesus historicity comes to just 0.008%

I suspect some people are getting his prior probability of 33% mixed up with his best case of consequent probability of 32% - when the real conclusion of his book is that Jesus' historicity is just 0.008% likely.

Kapyong

[lpetrich]

Thanx, Kapyong. I guess I'll have to read the book to see how he does his calculations.

But here might be a simple way to apply Bayes's theorem to the historicity question, and this is what Richard Carrier might ahve done. It's somewhat easier to picture that theorem in ratio form:
P(H1 if D)/P(H2 if D) = P(D if H1)/P(D if H2) * P(H1)/P(H2)

The odds version of the theorem is H2 = ~H1, and the first and third probability ratios become odds values.

As to estimating P(D if H), one could do that by counting up how many real heroes have each Lord Raglan score, and likewise how many legendary scores have each Lord Raglan score. Then,
P(score if historical) = N(real heroes with score)/Total
P(score if mythical) = N(legendary heroes with score)/Total

One may have to blur the numbers by taking N(score) = average of N(nearby scores) to get a smooth distribution.

But even if one does so, one finds that the probability of historicity for a Lord Raglan score of 19 or 20 is almost vanishingly small, except if one skews the prior odds heavily toward historicity. However, doing so would make other high scorers likely historical, so that would be illegitimate.

[ghost]

The 33% prior probability does come from something like that - by assigning Jesus to the 'conveniently named figures' reference class he estimates how many such figures are historical and how many are mythical, and comes up with a figure that it's twice as likely for such a figure to be mythical - i.e. 2 to 1 = 33% for being historical.

Thanks for the clarification.

But the majority of his work is determining the consequent probability which he does by evaluating the evidence against his two theories :
1. minimal Jesus historicity
2. minimal Jesus mythology
and determining how likely the evidence would look like it does for each theory.

What happens if it turns out that Jesus is mythical but based on a historical person who has a name other than "Jesus"?

[Bernard Muller]

Thank you Kapyong,

"Element 12: From as early as we can ascertain, Christian believed they became 'brothers' of the Lord Jesus Christ through Baptism (Rom. 6.3-10), which symbolised their death to the world and rebirth as the 'adopted sons of God' , hence they became the brothers of the Lord, 'the son of God' 101

"101. there are numerous passages that confirm this: Rom. 8:15-29; 9.26; Gal. 3:26-29; 4:4-7; and Heb. 2:10-18; Eph. 1:5; 1 Jn. 5:1-4; (and likewise 1 Jn. 2:28-3:10; 4:8; 5:18-20; with Rom. 6:3-10; Col. 2:12. See also Irenaeus Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 3 and 8; with Carrier 'Spiritual Body' in Empty Tomb (ed. Price and Lowder), pp 142-47. The notion could easily be derived from Ps. Sol. 17.27 "

However, as far as Paul`s epistles are concerned, these "sons of God" appear in Paul`s last letters only and are not mentioned in 1 Corinthians at all. Furthermore, Ro 8:29 "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren."
denies that Paul thought of his Christians as brothers of Jesus in any way, just brothers between themselves:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p86.htm
See also
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p87.htm

1 John mentioned "son(s) of God" many times (as also in Eph 1:5 & Col 2:12) for Christians but never they as brothers of Jesus.

Heb 2:10-18 was not written by Paul.
However Heb 2:11 has Jesus calling the sanctified ones "brethen" (but not "my brethens"), because its author quoted next a psalm (22:22 -- with "my brethen", from allegedly David--). But next, at Heb 2:13, he had Jesus, through a quote from Isa 8:18, saying he has been given children (not brothers) by God.
That does not tell me that the Christians then considered themselves "brothers of Jesus", not even from the author.

I am surprised that Carrier does not explain more fully in his new book something so important for him.
Years ago, he put "Christians thought of themselves as brothers of the Lord" being a 100% certitude, as the key data for his bayesan theorem which made the overall result 69% in favor of "brothers of the Lord" meaning Christians, against 31% for meaning blood brothers of Jesus.
Ref: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... mment-6716

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

What happens if it turns out that Jesus is mythical but based on a historical person who has a name other than "Jesus"?

See these two posts on the previous page by maryhelena for some further clarification

• .i/ http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 200#p14676 and
  ii/ http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 200#p14680

There are quite a few permutations.

I think it's possible, or even likely, that key "Jesus events/stories" such as the Sermon on the Mount occurred 3rd or 4th C: piecemeal, presented by one or more preachers who were not 'Jesus' ie. in sections over a period of time.

add -
Some think 'The Sermon on the Mount' is a chiastic structure. Some think the whole NT is [a chiastic structure]

[ghost]

See these two posts on the previous page by maryhelena for some further clarification

• .i/ http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 200#p14676 and
  ii/ http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 200#p14680

There are quite a few permutations.

I think it's possible, or even likely, that key "Jesus events/stories" such as the Sermon on the Mount occurred 3rd or 4th C: piecemeal, presented by one or more preachers who were not 'Jesus' ie. in sections over a period of time.

OK. Thanks. So if I understand this correctly, Carrier completely ignores that third option.

[MrMacSon]

So if I understand this correctly, Carrier completely ignores that third option.

I'm not sure its a simple as that ie. it's not necessarily the trilemma you propose

Page 617

From here things can go three ways:

1. Minimal mythicism is more likely how Christianity began. If that’s true, we can prove it. If we can prove it, it will eventually become the broadest consensus of all but Christian apologists (who obviously will reject evidence when in conflict with their faith).

2. Minimal mythicism is not more likely how Christianity began. If that’s true, we can prove it. If we can prove it, what we will then have proved will become the broadest consensus. We will then have some facts about a historical Jesus we can assert as confidently known.

3. It’s not possible on present evidence to know whether minimal mythicism is more likely how Christianity began. If that’s true, we can prove it. If we can prove it, mythicists and historicists will both have to concede the point. Historicists will have to accept mythicism as a viable theory, and mythicists will have to accept some historical Jesus scenarios may be viable, too. We just don’t have the data we need in order to know which it is.

via http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 200#p14676
.

[ghost]

Note the first point in Carrier's definition of "historical":

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14503

An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.

What if he wasn't called "Jesus"?

[MrMacSon]

Note the first point in Carrier's definition of "historical":

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=687&start=130#p14503

An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.

What if he wasn't called "Jesus"?

aha. I think it's reasonable to propose that many scenarios contributed to the 'cumulative elaboration' that the NT seems to be.