Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

You need to understand how to work with probability in the absence of independence. Please learn about it.

Why don't you go back to my initial claim with my nine points and substitute to it your own set of calculations with your own values about probabilities (including the conditional ones)?

Cordially, Bernard

Okay, I could. The numbers (like all of these numbers) would be 'made up', though.

[Peter Kirby]

I basically disagree with the framework of assigning probability to arguments (as we've mentioned elsewhere), but if we are doing this...

I'm going to say that we're talking about "having a good bit of evidence" and "this being a good bit of evidence," where a good bit of evidence is one where its premises obtain (authentic text, for example), to try to avoid any contradictions of the approach.

Honestly I'm still not sure if it entirely makes sense, but it's what you'd like to attempt to do, so I will oblige.

Let's say we give 50% probability that the following shows that Jesus called Christ existed as a man on earth:
1) Descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16)

Okay, 50% probability. Unconditional. Why not.

In most of the rest of the probability space, these are (stipulated to be) "universes" in which HJ material has been interpolated. (Note: I get to make up the numbers... I'm only doing this because I was asked...)

2) Descendant of Israelites (Ro 9:4-5)

5%, conditioned on the negation of (1).

3) Descendant of Jesse (Ro 15:12)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1) and (2)

4) Descendant of David (Ro 1:3)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1), (2), and (3).

5) Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19)

5%, conditioned on the negation of (1), (2), (3), and (4).

6) becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (5).

7) From the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (6).

8) Tacitus' Annals 15.44

20%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (7).

9) Josephus' Antiquities XX, IX, 1

20%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (8).

Note: If assigning different probabilities for each point, the equation becomes: P = 1 - [(1-p1)*(1-p2)*...*(1-pN)]

Basically, but the probabilities need to be probabilities conditioned on the previous events not obtaining. So, in 'universes' where all the previous events didn't happen, what percent of them have that event happening... or something like that.

Numerically, we have...

1 - 0.5 * 0.95 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.95 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.8 * 0.8

The made up numbers yield 72.26% probability.

In the way I've attempted to interpret this procedure, there is a 72.26% chance (using some made up figures) that all the premises for at least one of your (inferential) arguments are true, making at least one of them a sound inferential argument (which is not to say proof).

If your point is that we shouldn't say that there are 'no' arguments that are decent for the historicity of Jesus, point taken.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

In most of the rest of the probability space, these are (stipulated to be) "universes" in which HJ material has been interpolated. (Note: I get to make up the numbers... I'm only doing this because I was asked...)

And what evidence do you have about my pieces of evidence 2 to 9 were most likely to have been interpolated than not interpolated, by factors of 95%, 99%, 99%, 95%, 99%, 99%, 80% & 80%? Your claims require solid evidence in order to lower my probabilities from 50% (average) to your 1% or 5% or 20%. Just mentioning universes in which HJ material has been interpolated is no evidence regarding specifically my 9 points which are either pre-gospel or from non-Christians.
Furthermore, in the cases addressed by Carrier in OHJ (4, 5, 6, 8, 9) the worst probabilities (from the historicity view point) are respectively 50%, 33%, 50%, 50% & 50%. http://historical-jesus.info/110.html

And I still do not understand why these probabilities should be lowered so much because of (assumed) conditioning on the (assumed) negation of previous points.

Actually, my pieces of evidence 1 & 6 are the most solid and should be much higher than 50%, according to my study here:
http://historical-jesus.info/18.html

Even with your drastic & radical assignment of probabilities, the overall probability for Jesus having been an earthly human comes as more than 72%.
And that's not even taking in account "poor, in poverty" (2 Cor 8:9) (can anyone be poor in heaven?), "the one man Jesus Christ" (Ro 5:15) (also in 1 Co 15:47), and the crucifixion happening in the heartland of the Jews http://historical-jesus.info/19.html (1 Co).

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

In most of the rest of the probability space, these are (stipulated to be) "universes" in which HJ material has been interpolated. (Note: I get to make up the numbers... I'm only doing this because I was asked...)

And what evidence do you have about my pieces of evidence 2 to 9 were most likely to have been interpolated than not interpolated, by factors of 95%, 99%, 99%, 95%, 99%, 99%, 80% & 80%?

That's not what I'm saying.

I entered this thread to point you in the direction of thinking about conditional probability, which is necessary to make a valid statement about probability like the one in the OP.

Clearly, at this point, I've failed.

[MrMacSon]

I basically disagree with the framework of assigning probability to arguments (as we've mentioned elsewhere), but if we are doing this...

I'm going to say that we're talking about "having a good bit of evidence" and "this being a good bit of evidence," where a good bit of evidence is one where its premises obtain (authentic text, for example), to try to avoid any contradictions of the approach.

Honestly I'm still not sure if it entirely makes sense, but it's what you'd like to attempt to do, so I will oblige.

Let's say we give 50% probability that the following shows that Jesus called Christ existed as a man on earth:
1) Descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16)

Okay, 50% probability. Unconditional. Why not.

In most of the rest of the probability space, these are (stipulated to be) "universes" in which HJ material has been interpolated. (Note: I get to make up the numbers... I'm only doing this because I was asked...)

2) Descendant of Israelites (Ro 9:4-5)

5%, conditioned on the negation of (1).

3) Descendant of Jesse (Ro 15:12)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1) and (2)

4) Descendant of David (Ro 1:3)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1), (2), and (3).

5) Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19)

5%, conditioned on the negation of (1), (2), (3), and (4).

6) becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (5).

7) From the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14)

1%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (6).

8) Tacitus' Annals 15.44

20%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (7).

9) Josephus' Antiquities XX, IX, 1

20%, conditioned on the negation of (1) through (8).

Note: If assigning different probabilities for each point, the equation becomes: P = 1 - [(1-p1)*(1-p2)*...*(1-pN)]

Basically, but the probabilities need to be probabilities conditioned on the previous events not obtaining. So, in 'universes' where all the previous events didn't happen, what percent of them have that event happening... or something like that.

Numerically, we have...

1 - 0.5 * 0.95 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.95 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.8 * 0.8

The made up numbers yield 72.26% probability.

In the way I've attempted to interpret this procedure, there is a 72.26% chance (using some made up figures) that all the premises for at least one of your (inferential) arguments are true, making at least one of them a sound inferential argument (which is not to say proof).

If your point is that we shouldn't say that there are 'no' arguments that are decent for the historicity of Jesus, point taken.

Surely (1) Descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), (2) Descendant of Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), (3) Descendant of Jesse (Ro 15:12), (4) Descendant of David (Ro 1:3), and (7) From the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14) are inter-related concepts and unrelated to the others -ie. unrelated to (5), (6), (8), and (9).

Surely (5) 'Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19)' and (6) 'becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4)' (and perhaps (9) Josephus' Antiquities XX, IX, 1) should be inter-related to each other, but the notion those premises are inter-related is fraught b/c there is no clear relationship between the various James (plural) of the Bible (in the Synoptics) and Mary, the mother of Jesus or Joseph (the supposed father of Jesus)!!! Moreover, some of the Synoptic commentary is not only unclear about the genealogy of the other James, but actually gives other parents!!

(8) Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is un-related & unconditional on the other premises.

[Peter Kirby]

Surely (1) Descendant of Abraham (Gal 3:16), (2) Descendant of Israelites (Ro 9:4-5), (3) Descendant of Jesse (Ro 15:12), (4) Descendant of David (Ro 1:3), and (7) From the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14) are inter-related concepts and unrelated to the others -ie. unrelated to (5), (6), (8), and (9).

Surely (5) Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19) and (6) becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4) (and perhaps (9) Josephus' Antiquities XX, IX, 1) should be inter-related to each other, but the notion those premises are inter-related are is fraught b/c there is no clear relationship between the various James (plural) of the Bible (in the Synoptics) and Mary, the mother of Jesus or Joseph (the supposed father of Jesus)!!!

(8) Tacitus' Annals 15.44 is un-related & unconditional on the other premises.

In general, you're thinking about things fairly well, but that still doesn't mean that there can't be disagreement on such details.

In the interest of clarity, I think we should separate out many things that are currently being conflated.

(a) What we're calling the probability of interpolation.
(b) What we're calling the probability of 'historicist interpetation'.
(c) What we're calling the probability of (perhaps the most problematic) 'reliable information' (here especially is where I think we could benefit from not attempting to work like this but instead consider both the hypothesis and its negation - the historicity of Jesus - in a Bayesian way, which is both mathematically valid and relatively simple, but which has the disadvantage of being used by Carrier).

Could I be correct in guessing that your comments are (at least in part) related to (b), matters of interpretation?

Consider also the matters of interpolation.

And then also the matters of 'reliable information'. IF all the references in Paul fail to establish the historicity of Jesus, due to false premises (specifically, interpolation and/or false interpretation, not unreliability), what does this say about the genesis of the Jesus mytheme?

(There might also be more to consider, such as when in history we place the original author of the letters.)

[MrMacSon]

IF all the references snippets in Paul fail to establish the historicity of Jesus, due to false premises (specifically, interpolation and/or false interpretation, not unreliability), what does this say about the genesis of the Jesus mytheme?

Good question, and good premises underpinning it. The appeal to snippets in Paul, such as 'becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4)' or 'Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (Gal 1:19)', do not place these snippets in context of the whole body of the NT (trying to recruit 1 Cor 9:5 = FFS).

There might also be more to consider, such as when in history we place the original author of the letters.

Yes, that's relevant. There's still more work to do on that (such as more people reading Bob Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle).

I think even Carrier is closed-minded on the dating of the writing of the NT texts (it would be interesting to know what he thinks of Vinzent's & Klinghardt's relatively recent proposals the Synoptics could well be post-Marcion. Carrier has recently alluded to ' "impossibly late'' dating of the gospels')

(c) What we're calling the probability of (perhaps the most problematic) 'reliable information' (... consider both the hypothesis and its negation ...in a Bayesian way, which is both mathematically valid and relatively simple, but which has the disadvantage of being used by Carrier).

• Yes, the concept of 'probability that information is reliable' could be developed and applied.
  
  Yes, it probably involves a Bayesian approach. Why is it a disadvantage that Carrier uses it?

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

That's not what I'm saying.

I entered this thread to point you in the direction of thinking about conditional probability, which is necessary to make a valid statement about probability like the one in the OP.

I was just disputing the value of your conditional probabilities, most of them outrageously very low, and with no evidence for that.
I always acknowledged what you call conditional probability and that's why I lowered my probabilities to an average of 50%, which is very generous, I may add, because my own appraisal would be an average more like 80% to 90%, considering the arguments which has been made for interpolations or alternate interpretations (away from showing historicity).

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I was just disputing the value of your conditional probabilities, most of them outrageously very low, and with no evidence for that.

... I lowered my probabilities to an average of 50%, which is very generous, I may add, because my own appraisal would be an average more like 80% to 90%, considering the arguments which has been made for interpolations or alternate interpretations (away from showing historicity).

It doesn't work like that Bernard. One ought to look at the forest as well as the trees. Context is key

-eg. my comments^ about James genealogy -

The appeal to snippets in Paul, such as 'becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4)' or 'Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (Gal 1:19)', do not place these snippets in context of the whole body of the NT

Trying to recruit 1 Cor 9:5 is disingenuous.

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

It doesn't work like that Bernard. One ought to look at the forest as well as the trees. Context is key

What do you mean by that? What context or forest are you talking about? How would that affect my rating of probabilities?

The appeal to snippets in Paul, such as 'becoming from a woman (Gal 4:4)' or 'Having brothers by blood, one of them being James (Gal 1:19)', do not place these snippets in context of the whole body of the NT.

Trying to recruit 1 Cor 9:5 is disingenuous.

Why not in context with the whole body of the NT? All gospels agree Jesus was born of a woman and some gospels have James as one of the brothers of Jesus. So what other context are you talking about?
And why would my recruiting of 1 Cor 9:5 be "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." (meaning of disingenuous)?

Cordially, Bernard