Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The null hypothesis -- which would be borne out if there is no statistically significant difference between the 'control' and either of the two test groups -- could be explained by one of the following (or something else): (A) People have the ability to be somewhat accurate in historical judgments i...

Surely the contention of anyone introducing Bayesian-form arguments into historical analysis is that we get more reliable results thereby.

Else, why all the fuss?

what you'd be testing is not whether Bayes' Theorem is correct (that's a matter for math and logic, surely) Ja, klar! Bayes' Theorem is mathematically proven. whether non-mathematicians can apply it well enough to arrive at correct answers more often than "organic" reasoning Pretty much. ...

Just for fun I guess you could also get a bunch of classics and ancient history professors together at a conference to take the same test, to see if they do any better than the great unwashed.

If you're feeling really fiesty, you can see whether the AARSBL guys do any better.

It occurred to me that it may be possible to put the historical 'methods' to an empirical test. One could take cases from obscure 18th, 19th, and 20th century history -- a list of relevant facts, and then one or more possible conclusions (one of which is true). The cases would have to be too obscure...

The chi-square-based method (Fisher's method) for aggregating p-values is, in this context, too unreliable and has been 'commented out' of the source code (and thus not calculated or displayed).

neilgodfrey wrote:I don't see any ascension in Matthew 28 at all.

Good point.

(... although it doesn't seem to affect my analysis in this thread much, if at all.)

I am afraid what I have found to be the case so far in book 3 is the boring outcome I think you're right, Ben. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. (I mean, other than that we don't seem to know what Celsus really thought about the origins of Christianity...) On the other hand, I gave up somewher...

In other words, only in Hebrew - i.e. in the last sentence viz "For this shall be called ishah (woman), for from ish (man) was this taken" are the terms for male and female humans so similar in sound. in Greek "man" is anthropos (and there is no feminine form such as anthropaia)...

Secret Alias wrote:

Your quote is in no way related to your comments...

Hmmm. So what do you think Genesis R is saying?

The quote 'proves' that the language of creation was Hebrew, not Greek (anthropos, gyne) or Aramaic (gabra-man).

If you see more than that, you will have to explain.