Rules of Historical Reasoning

[Bernard Muller]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier, here are two quotes from Tucker:

"The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere." (I do not know how to understand that)

"Carrier is too dismissive of such [historians] methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence."

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier, here are two quotes from Tucker:

"The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere." (I do not know how to understand that)

"Carrier is too dismissive of such [historians] methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence."

Cordially, Bernard

That cherry-picked quotation is from the abstract to the article, not from the body of the article with the full explanation. The relevant section is:

Carrier’s explanation of some of the evidence in the Gospels is fascinating
because, as far as I know, it is the first Bayesian reconstruction of structuralism
and mimesis. It may be fruitfully applied to textual criticism, the history
of literature, anthropology, and more. Carrier suggests that the evaluation of
the prior probabilities of mimesis hypotheses depends on how well-known the
imitated work was, how frequently mimesis was practiced in the genre to which
the possibly imitating work belonged, and whether the author was mimetic. The
likelihood of the evidence, given a mimetic hypothesis, depends on how similar
the “imitator” is to the “source” in terms of their ordered structure (including
narrative reversal or parody), especially unusual sequences of events, their use of
unusual words, or any other correlations that are unlikely if the similarities are
coincidental or reflect independent descriptions of the same events. Carrier’s sole
but good example for a likely mimetic relation between the Gospels and earlier
texts is between the story of the resurrection of Jesus and Daniel’s salvation in the
book of Daniel. He could have added the similarities between aspects of the Jesus
narratives and the biblical stories about Abraham, Joseph, Moses, King David,
Elijah, and Isaiah. Another interesting discussion, in chapter 5, is of the criteria
historians used to attempt to infer from the evidence some probable propositions
about Jesus. Historians accepted that the present version of the Gospels is late
and contains much “noise,” materials that did not originate at the time of the life
and death of Jesus. They attempted to use theories about the transmission and
preservation of information to find more reliable parts of the Gospels, parts that
are more likely to have preserved older information. Carrier is dismissive of such
criteria. But again, he is focused solely on Jesus and does not see value in evidence
that is reliable in inferring other kinds of hypotheses. (pp. 137-138

I expect that Carrier might reply that rather than being "dismissive" in the sense of failing to address "criteriology" and models that are buttressed by "criteria" as distinct from evidence, Carrier does indeed address the criteria. The theories that are justified by those criteria are hence robbed of significant support.

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

Carrier is dismissive of such criteria.

(the ones of historicists)
Of course, what's new?

But again, he is focused solely on Jesus and does not see value in evidence
that is reliable in inferring other kinds of hypotheses.

Would that mean Carrier is not considering historicist's hypothese based on evidence that is reliable?

Carrier’s sole but good example for a likely mimetic relation between the Gospels and earlier
texts is between the story of the resurrection of Jesus and Daniel’s salvation in the
book of Daniel.

The story of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels is entirely fiction, so that does not affect Jesus (from birth to death) as being historical or not.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

Carrier is dismissive of such criteria.

(the ones of historicists)
Of course, what's new?

But again, he is focused solely on Jesus and does not see value in evidence
that is reliable in inferring other kinds of hypotheses.

Would that mean Carrier is not considering historicist's hypothese based on evidence that is reliable?

Carrier’s sole but good example for a likely mimetic relation between the Gospels and earlier
texts is between the story of the resurrection of Jesus and Daniel’s salvation in the
book of Daniel.

The story of the resurrection of Jesus in the gospels is entirely fiction, so that does not affect Jesus (from birth to death) as being historical or not.

Cordially, Bernard

You seem to have a serious reading comprehension handicap, Bernard. You appear to have failed to grasp the point that Carrier actually did address those hypotheses and criteria in Proving History. I am amazed that you can form such dogmatic opinions without demonstrating the slightest hint that you have actually grasped the logic of the argument to which you think you are responding.

I sometimes ask someone to sum up their understanding of an argument they are opposing so I can be sure we are on the same page and are addressing the same point. I would love to see you try to sum up an argument you disagree with, but I suspect you will do little more than present a straw man with lots of insult and denigration.

[Paul E.]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier, here are two quotes from Tucker:

"The problem with the Synoptic Gospels as evidence for a historical Jesus from a Bayesian perspective is that the evidence that coheres does not seem to be independent, whereas the evidence that is independent does not seem to cohere." (I do not know how to understand that)

"Carrier is too dismissive of such [historians] methods because he is focused on hypotheses about the historical Jesus rather than on the best explanations of the evidence."

Cordially, Bernard

The Wikipedia page is accurate. The first quote comes from the full text of Tucker's review of Proving History (in History and Theory, vol. 55, iss. 1, page 137 - you can get a free preview of the full text from the journal's website); the second quote comes from the abstract, but is loyal to the text of the review on p. 137-139.

As to the first quote, Tucker, as I see it, is analyzing what he views as a major shortcoming in Carrier's book relating to the Synoptic problem, i.e. that Carrier does not address what Tucker sees as the main method of Bayesian determination posterior probability, which is multiple independent attestation. Tucker goes on to address the issue of what is "independent" and what coheres. In other words, the most parsimonious explanation of similarities and differences is that Matthew and Luke were influenced by Mark but also by another source (Q), so you cannot, from a Bayesian or any other approach, avoid the historiographical source questions that scholars have been wrestling with for generations now. That's how I see it, anyway. It's an interesting issue.

As to the second quote, I don't think anyone would disagree that Carrier is dismissive of NT scholars' methods. Whether, as Tucker judges, Carrier is too dismissive is, of course, a different matter.

I hope this is responsive and useful. I don't engage much on this forum, but you always seem to be polite, respectful and have actually done analytic work on this stuff even if I may disagree with some of it Cheers.

[Bernard Muller]

to Neil,

I would love to see you try to sum up an argument you disagree with, but I suspect you will do little more than present a straw man with lots of insult and denigration.

I have many posts on my blog showing disagreement with Carrier's arguments (plus a lot more on Carrier's own blogs).
Click on http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html, then "find" on: {Carrier}
I have no less than forty-three posts addressing Carrier's arguments.
For insult and denigration, that was mostly from Carrier to me, not the other way around.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

to Neil,

I would love to see you try to sum up an argument you disagree with, but I suspect you will do little more than present a straw man with lots of insult and denigration.

I have many posts on my blog showing disagreement with Carrier's arguments (plus a lot more on Carrier's own blogs).
Click on http://historical-jesus.info/blog.html, then "find" on: {Carrier}
I have no less than forty-three posts addressing Carrier's arguments.
For insult and denigration, that was mostly from Carrier to me, not the other way around.

Cordially, Bernard

I know you have many times expressed disagreement with many others. But that was not my complaint.

[hakeem]

The claim that Acts is not totally unhistorical is rather useless since it cannot be shown to be an historical source for Jesus, Saul/Paul and the Apostles. There is simply no historical corroboration for Acts with regards to events about Jesus, Saul/Paul and the Apostles.

The story in Acts that Jesus resurrected and ascended in a cloud does not require an actual person.

No real person has ever resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

The story in Acts that the Holy Ghost came down from heaven and gave the disciples power to preach the Gospel does not require real people or an actual Ghost.

No such thing as a Holy Ghost can give people power to preach the invented resurrection and ascension story.

The story in Acts that Saul/Paul was blinded by a bright light and conversed with the resurrected/ascended Jesus does not require real people.

No person has ever been blinded by a light and heard the voice of the invented resurrected/ascended Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles does not even appear to represent the history of Christianity in the 1st or 2nd century since many supposed Christian and Non Christian writers up to the late 2nd century did not mention a single event about Paul.

[neilgodfrey]

The claim that Acts is not totally unhistorical is rather useless since it cannot be shown to be an historical source for Jesus, Saul/Paul and the Apostles. There is simply no historical corroboration for Acts with regards to events about Jesus, Saul/Paul and the Apostles.

You're quite right re the question of the historicity of Jesus. I think the reason Acts came into the discussion, however, was to address the question of how historians use sources and whether a valid argument can be made that a certain speech about Jesus by Paul was based on a source known to the author. Of course that still leaves the question of the historicity of Jesus itself unresolved.

[neilgodfrey]

What, then, is the difference (if any) between Carrier's use of source criticism here and, say, Theissen's when he argues for . . . . a form of Q dating to before 70?

To address Theissen's method (setting aside a comparison with Carrier for now):

As I understand Theissen, the way he is going about dating Q is by seeing what content in Q lines up against what we know of the world external to the text.

e.g. No expectation of any dramatic warnings or great signs to herald the coming of the Son of Man in Q. This aligns with a pre-war situation, before any hint of various upheavals.

That's a reasonable way of examining the evidence for dating. It is open to debate, of course. In the case of the example above one might say the same textual content aligns with certain periods after the war of 66-70, too. The method allows us to come up with a reasonable hypothesis for the date of Q.

(Further, Q itself is a valid conclusion to draw from valid source criticism.)