Can Richard Carrier be trusted to write the truth?

[MrMacSon]

Why should we take it that Paul lived?

[MattMorales]

I believe I already laid out my case in the thread on Carrier vs. Brodie. For the purposes of this discussion, all that matters is that we have seven or so letters which seem to be written by the same person (who calls himself "Paul") and which seem to date before the fall of the second temple (except for the verses in question). The seven "authentic" letters also seem mostly unaware of later legends which were attached to the apostle.

We could spend all day being ultra-skeptical. If you have specific points you'd like to discuss, please detail them.

[Peter Kirby]

Did you read the book?
One thing is certain: the subtitle does not describe the content of the book and Carrier's personal conclusion:

"The odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero."

(page 600)
Cordially, Bernard

I lost some respect for Carrier with his wimpy sub-title. Seems like a cop-out, unlike him, perhaps foisted on him by the publishers.

Publisher interference in titles is considerable. Even in academic publications, it might be assigned a prior probability of 50%. Further, I find the subtitle 100% likely on the hypothesis of publisher preference and at best 60% likely on the hypothesis of Carrier's preference, while I'd put my actual estimate at 20% likelihood. Putting the likelihood that Carrier penned the subtitle between 37% at best and at 17% in all likelihood, using this:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/bayescalculator.html

Thanks, Bayesian Calculator!

[Leucius Charinus]

Why should we take it that Paul lived?

Good question. Additionally why should we take it that Paul died in Rome under Nero when the literary sources embellishing this claim of Eusebius are actually the pulp fiction books of the heretics, not the canonical books.

[John T]

That was very funny Peter, thanks for the laugh.

Now that we all have the link to the Carrier Calculator, the only thing left for us to do is to mathematically solve the question: Can Richard Carrier be trusted to write the truth?.

Simply plug in the numbers and report the results.

Our results will all be close together because the Carrier Calculator has a margin of error of only +/- 100%.

Upon that note, I'm done with this thread.

John T

[RecoveringScot]

Upon that note, I'm done with this thread.

John T

Any chance of answering how someone who quotes Socrates about the inevitability of human ignorance (i.e. you) can at the same time write that Jesus 'most certainly' existed?

No, I thought not.

[Bertie]

I lost some respect for Carrier with his wimpy sub-title. Seems like a cop-out, unlike him, perhaps foisted on him by the publishers.

Publisher interference in titles is considerable. Even in academic publications, it might be assigned a prior probability of 50%. Further, I find the subtitle 100% likely on the hypothesis of publisher preference and at best 60% likely on the hypothesis of Carrier's preference, while I'd put my actual estimate at 20% likelihood. Putting the likelihood that Carrier penned the subtitle between 37% at best and at 17% in all likelihood, using this:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/bayescalculator.html

Thanks, Bayesian Calculator!

But wait! I have additional evidence, found here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ent-498042

As to the subtitle, you are right, that was Sheffield’s decision: their view being that as long as it is a proposal that hasn’t yet convinced a majority, it cannot be asserted as established. One can quibble about the epistemological assumptions in that thinking, but it’s their press, their standards.

I'd say this additional evidence is 99.99% likely on the hypothesis of "publisher preference" and 0.01% likely on the hypothesis of "Carrier preference" and so, plugging in the numbers....yeah, whatever, it was the publisher's decision.

[Bernard Muller]

Carrier has backed the theologians into a corner by stating that the crucifixion occurred in a sub-lunar realm, not earth. The theologians could easily refute this by going to 1 Thessalonians 2:16, ...

Actually, Paul indicated in 'Romans' the crucifixion was on earth. No need of theologians or 1 Th 2:15-16:
http://historical-jesus.info/19.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Also from Carrier's book (Preface): "Though I shall argue it’s likely… that Jesus did not in fact exist, I cannot assume it has been conclusively proved here. In fact, it may yet be proved false in future work, ..."
Bolding mine.
I suppose the publisher also forced Carrier to write the above quote.
Cordially, Bernard

[Blood]

I lost some respect for Carrier with his wimpy sub-title. Seems like a cop-out, unlike him, perhaps foisted on him by the publishers.

Publisher interference in titles is considerable. Even in academic publications, it might be assigned a prior probability of 50%. Further, I find the subtitle 100% likely on the hypothesis of publisher preference and at best 60% likely on the hypothesis of Carrier's preference, while I'd put my actual estimate at 20% likelihood. Putting the likelihood that Carrier penned the subtitle between 37% at best and at 17% in all likelihood, using this:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/bayescalculator.html

Thanks, Bayesian Calculator!

But wait! I have additional evidence, found here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... ent-498042

As to the subtitle, you are right, that was Sheffield’s decision: their view being that as long as it is a proposal that hasn’t yet convinced a majority, it cannot be asserted as established. One can quibble about the epistemological assumptions in that thinking, but it’s their press, their standards.

I'd say this additional evidence is 99.99% likely on the hypothesis of "publisher preference" and 0.01% likely on the hypothesis of "Carrier preference" and so, plugging in the numbers....yeah, whatever, it was the publisher's decision.

"as it is a proposal that hasn’t yet convinced a majority, it cannot be asserted as established"? That's not how theological studies operate. In theology, you simply assert your ideas (Q, Son of Man, gnostic redeemer, apocalyptic prophet, cynic Jesus, whatever) until you convince a few fellow theologians of your thesis, and it snowballs from there until it becomes normative and thus "established," even though it may be complete bullshit.