Historical Karen

[steve_bank]

Karen loves you. Believe in Karen and you will have an eternal after life in her living room.

I think we are demonstrating how Christianity got started.

 

[bilby]

Live a righteous and pure life of obedience to the rules and teachings of Karen, and you too may be blessed to see The Manager.

 

[atrib]

Carrier employs Bayes ridiculously but nobody complains about THAT, except for me.

What is ridiculous about his assumptions? Do you have a better way to analyze the historicity of the Jesus claims?

 

[Swammerdami]

(Edited.)

Carrier employs Bayes ridiculously but nobody complains about THAT, except for me.

What is ridiculous about his assumptions? Do you have a better way to analyze the historicity of the Jesus claims?

Off-topic. I've answered in another thread. I post the answer here also, but in SPOILER tag.

Spoiler

I've no problem with the principle of Bayesian analysis, but I think it is impossibly difficult to apply in many complicated cases. Does Mark's narrative read like it's based on a flesh-and-blood man (as C.S. Lewis insists) or like it's pure fiction (as some others insist)? I don't know. Do you? The analyst would get very different results from different opinions, but Carrier avoids the issue by simply crossing apparent authenticity of narratives completely off the list of evidence to be examined.

Here's a clearer example. In his Book XX, Josephus confirms the identity of the "Lord's brother" Paul describes in Galatians 1:19:

So [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

Mythical men do NOT have flesh-and-blood brothers. If Josephus really wrote this, it would show that he thought Jesus called Christ was a real historical person. The evidentiary value would be HUGE. But was this Josephus text doctored in the 3rd or 4th century by a Christian? I don't know; do you?

And what if the original was "brother of Jesus whose name was James" with only "who was called Christ" interpolated? It would still have some evidentiary value. (Yes, Jesus was a common name — that's why suffixes like "the son of Damneus" or "who was called Christ" are appended — but why mention the brother at all?)

What are the odds? I don't know. Maybe — wild guesses — 5% that the original Josephus never mentioned this James at all; 25% that he mentioned James but no brother; 40% that he mentioned the brother but not "called Christ", 30% that the paragraph is as Josephus originally wrote it? And there are plenty of other relevant facts. The head gets dizzy imagining the complicated flow graph that defines the Bayesian calculations required.

So what weight does Richard Carrier give Josephus' writing in his Bayesian flow graph? Zero. With a Z. (That approach DOES avoid a lot of unpleasant arithmetic! ). "Your Honor, the entirety of Josephus' writings are inadmissable. I will move for a mistrial if opposing counsel shows any James or Jesus mention in Josephus to the jury again." ZERO. Carrier decides that Josephus' mentionS of Jesus were probably interpolations, but probably morphs into 100% certainty BEFORE he ever trots out Bayes' Theorem.

Do you understand my objection? Raise your hand if you do; you'll be the first one.

 

[Hermit]

Spoiler

Carrier employs Bayes ridiculously but nobody complains about THAT, except for me.

Spoiler

What is ridiculous about his assumptions? Do you have a better way to analyze the historicity of the Jesus claims?

Spoiler

I've no problem with the principle of Bayesian analysis, but I think it is impossibly difficult to apply in many complicated cases. Does Mark's narrative read like it's based on a flesh-and-blood man (as C.S. Lewis insists) or like it's pure fiction (as some others insist)? I don't know. Do you? The analyst would get very different results from different opinions, but Carrier avoids the issue by simply crossing apparent authenticity of narratives completely off the list of evidence to be examined.

Here's a clearer example. In his Book XX, Josephus confirms the identity of the "Lord's brother" Paul describes in Galatians 1:19:

So [Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James: and some of his companions. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

Mythical men do NOT have flesh-and-blood brothers. If Josephus really wrote this, it would show that he thought Jesus called Christ was a real historical person. The evidentiary value would be HUGE. But was this Josephus text doctored in the 3rd or 4th century by a Christian? I don't know; do you?

And what if the original was "brother of Jesus whose name was James" with only "who was called Christ" interpolated? It would still have some evidentiary value. (Yes, Jesus was a common name — that's why suffixes like "the son of Damneus" or "who was called Christ" are appended — but why mention the brother at all?)

What are the odds? I don't know. Maybe — wild guesses — 5% that the original Josephus never mentioned this James at all; 25% that he mentioned James but no brother; 40% that he mentioned the brother but not "called Christ", 30% that the paragraph is as Josephus originally wrote it? And there are plenty of other relevant facts. The head gets dizzy imagining the complicated flow graph that defines the Bayesian calculations required.

So what weight does Richard Carrier give Josephus' writing in his Bayesian flow graph? Zero. With a Z. (That approach DOES avoid a lot of unpleasant arithmetic! ). "Your Honor, the entirety of Josephus' writings are inadmissable. I will move for a mistrial if opposing counsel shows any James or Jesus mention in Josephus to the jury again." ZERO. Carrier decides that Josephus' mentionS of Jesus were probably interpolations, but probably morphs into 100% certainty BEFORE he ever trots out Bayes' Theorem.

Do you understand my objection? Raise your hand if you do; you'll be the first one.

Wrong thread.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The contradictory tall tales of Jesus make it all unlikely.

But what really matters are the false prophecies of the end of the world and the coming of the Kingdom Of Heaven in the lifetime of the followers of Jesus.