- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,128
- Location
- Cascadia
- Basic Beliefs
- Militant Agnostic...aka functional Atheist
-
Features
Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out
- Thread starter Razncain
- Start date
ruby sparks
Contributor
Meh. Jesus mythicism. It's a secular internet meme with shaky foundations. A quasi-conspiracy theory. Slightly embarrassing, imo.
As for Carrier, I think he's ok, but no better than an average-to-middling historian who has found a niche and who is a bit of a poster boy for Jesus skepticism among his fellow atheists. Better than Earl Doherty, though that isn't difficult.
As for Carrier, I think he's ok, but no better than an average-to-middling historian who has found a niche and who is a bit of a poster boy for Jesus skepticism among his fellow atheists. Better than Earl Doherty, though that isn't difficult.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,128
- Location
- Cascadia
- Basic Beliefs
- Militant Agnostic...aka functional Atheist
Heh...Yeah. Still, it's a shipload better than that other meme with even shakier foundations. A conspiracy theory of cosmic proportions. Entirely embarrassing. Y'know, Christianity.
Heh. Carrier is bland and khaki, Earl is not. I've seen Carrier's career rise from his graduate studies. I think he is a nice, thoughtful young man. A bit on the tedious side. I've moderated Earl. Many times. He can induce migraines.
lpetrich
Contributor
I've read that book. I like it. It even has details of RC's probability calculations.
From Chapter 6: The Prior Probability > 3. Using the Rank-Raglan Reference Class
He notes Jesus Christ's name is rather conveniently symbolic: "Savior Messiah". He then does a hand-waving estimate of the odds against that happening for a real person: at least 2:1. Thus an estimate of <= 33% for JC being historical.
A symbolic name is a name like "Cruella De Vil", the name of the villain of "101 Dalmatians", someone who wants to make a fur coat out of the skins of those dogs.
He then gets to his 15 Lord-Raglan high scorers (max score 22): 1. Oedipus (21) 2. Moses (20) 3. Jesus (20) 4. Theseus (19) 5. Dionysus (19) 6. Romulus (18) 7. Perseus (17) 8. Hercules (17) 9. Zeus (15) 10. Bellerophon (14) 11. Jason (14) 12. Osiris (14) 13. Pelops (13) 14. Asclepius (12) 15. Joseph (son of Jacob, in Genesis) (12)
All but Jesus Christ are nowadays currently considered mythical, it's possible to come up with an estimate of the probability of that happening when a high scorer has a certain probability of being historical. He then uses Laplace's Rule of Succession to estimate that probability: at most 1/16 or 6%.
Granting the fundies Moses and Joseph, and supposing two of the pagans to be historical to avoid special pleading for Jewish heroes, gives 31%.
Laplace's rule of succession. If one has done an experiment with s successes in n trials, then one can infer a probability of success on the next trial of (s+1)/(n+2).
From Chapter 6: The Prior Probability > 3. Using the Rank-Raglan Reference Class
He notes Jesus Christ's name is rather conveniently symbolic: "Savior Messiah". He then does a hand-waving estimate of the odds against that happening for a real person: at least 2:1. Thus an estimate of <= 33% for JC being historical.
A symbolic name is a name like "Cruella De Vil", the name of the villain of "101 Dalmatians", someone who wants to make a fur coat out of the skins of those dogs.
He then gets to his 15 Lord-Raglan high scorers (max score 22): 1. Oedipus (21) 2. Moses (20) 3. Jesus (20) 4. Theseus (19) 5. Dionysus (19) 6. Romulus (18) 7. Perseus (17) 8. Hercules (17) 9. Zeus (15) 10. Bellerophon (14) 11. Jason (14) 12. Osiris (14) 13. Pelops (13) 14. Asclepius (12) 15. Joseph (son of Jacob, in Genesis) (12)
All but Jesus Christ are nowadays currently considered mythical, it's possible to come up with an estimate of the probability of that happening when a high scorer has a certain probability of being historical. He then uses Laplace's Rule of Succession to estimate that probability: at most 1/16 or 6%.
Granting the fundies Moses and Joseph, and supposing two of the pagans to be historical to avoid special pleading for Jewish heroes, gives 31%.
Laplace's rule of succession. If one has done an experiment with s successes in n trials, then one can infer a probability of success on the next trial of (s+1)/(n+2).
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
I think it's safe to say that gospel Jesus is a myth. To what degree that myth was inspired by actual events is the discussion.
lpetrich
Contributor
More of RC's probability calculations.
Chapter 8: The Extrabiblical Evidence > 1. Jesus When?
After mentioning more such chronological conundrums, he hand-waves the probability of someone mythical being placed in two historical periods as twice someone historical being so placed. That makes JC's probability of historicity at most 50%.
> 3. Missing Evidence
RC finds some 20 first- and second-century authors who might have mentioned JC or Xianity but who did not. They must have had a low individual probability of doing so. For 1/20 probability each, 20 authors would have an overall probability of 0.358 of mentioning them.
> 13. Weighing the Evidence
RC takes several extrabiblical sources and assigns odds of historicity for them. He then combines them and gets a historicity probability of 10% to 46%. Not very good.
Chapter 8: The Extrabiblical Evidence > 1. Jesus When?
So there are two times with a discrepancy of some 100 years. In the canonical account, he was either born during the reign of King Herod the Great (Matthew) or Roman administrator Quirinius (Luke), 10 years later. He was crucified the day before Passover on 30 or 33 CE (John) or during Passover on 27 or 34 CE (the Synoptics: Mt Mk Lk).
After mentioning more such chronological conundrums, he hand-waves the probability of someone mythical being placed in two historical periods as twice someone historical being so placed. That makes JC's probability of historicity at most 50%.
> 3. Missing Evidence
RC finds some 20 first- and second-century authors who might have mentioned JC or Xianity but who did not. They must have had a low individual probability of doing so. For 1/20 probability each, 20 authors would have an overall probability of 0.358 of mentioning them.
> 13. Weighing the Evidence
RC takes several extrabiblical sources and assigns odds of historicity for them. He then combines them and gets a historicity probability of 10% to 46%. Not very good.
lpetrich
Contributor
RC continues.
Chapter 9: Evidence of Acts > 3. The Mysterious Vanishing Acts
RC hand-waves the probability of Luke omitting all those people from Acts 2 - 28.
> 4. The ‘Trial Transcripts’ of Paul
RC does some more probability hand-waving.
> 7. Weighing the Evidence
RC combines his numbers and finds 20% to 72% probability of historicity from the content of Acts.
-
Those are all the probability calculations that I could find in that book. Of these, the Lord-Raglan-profile one seems to me to be the strongest.
Chapter 9: Evidence of Acts > 3. The Mysterious Vanishing Acts
A big list: Pontius Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon of Cyrene and his sons, Martha and her brother Lazarus, Nicodemus, and Mary Magdalene. JC's mother Mary and JC's brothers get a mention in Acts 1:14, but that's it in that book.
RC hand-waves the probability of Luke omitting all those people from Acts 2 - 28.
> 4. The ‘Trial Transcripts’ of Paul
RC does some more probability hand-waving.
> 7. Weighing the Evidence
RC combines his numbers and finds 20% to 72% probability of historicity from the content of Acts.
-
Those are all the probability calculations that I could find in that book. Of these, the Lord-Raglan-profile one seems to me to be the strongest.
ruby sparks
Contributor
There prolly was some guy. After a while, get over it, imo.
Or, if we are going to use arbitrary inputs for detailed calculations, shouldn't we at least do the answers to one decimal place?
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
If that's the strongest one then I think we're in a spot of trouble.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Lord Ralgan did myths. They were his 'thing'. He wasn't a historian. Sure, it's possible for a historian to add Jesus to a list of Ralgan-mythical characters, but only by ignoring what is arguably one of the key general criteria of historiography, dates of earliest attestation. How many of the other characters on that list have multiple attestations with 100 years of the time when the person was said to have existed? None, as far as I know. Jesus therefore arguably shouldn't even make the list. He's at least the odd one out.
I would even dispute awarding a score of 20 to him in any case. I suspect a fair bit of loose interpretation, and I read that with loose interpretation, Abraham Lincoln can be awarded a full 22 points.
Plus, even Ralgan, apparently, admitted his 22 criteria were arbitrarily chosen in the first place.
Carrier's specific problem is that he accepts, as I think is reasonable, all things considered, that there were texts referencing this character written within just a mere (arguably tiny by the standards of ancient history) 25 years of the alleged date (the Pauline Epistles). As far as I know, he sets that pretty much to one side before putting Jesus on such lists. It's extremely dubious and possibly just crap historical methodology.
As I see it, Carrier is then on the horns of a bit of a dilemma, because in order to have proceeded he is almost obliged to have taken seriously the arguably very ropey theories of people like Earl Doherty in order to get the very early attestations he accepts existed to not be about someone who reportedly, actually lived and died recently.
Personally, I think this seriously undermines almost everything Carrier does thereafter. Including trying to do detailed mathematical calculations on the issue, which I don't think is an enterprise to be taken all that seriously, because of the arbitrariness involved in both choosing criteria and assigning numbers to them. There is a big risk of garbage in-garbage out.
Last edited:
lpetrich
Contributor
What do you mean?
it is a reference to apparitions being clothed
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
There's always some guy or some thing. That's how writers write, but that is not historicity. That is literary license. Pegasus is historical by those standards, and so is Superman and the Flat Earth.
lpetrich
Contributor
I don't see why that makes such a big difference. In fact, that is an additional bit of oddity -- someone who is much like various legendary heroes but who allegedly lived relatively recently relative to his biographers.
Why don't you try scoring him yourself? List of Lord Raglan evaluations | Atheism | FANDOM powered by Wikia, Lord Raglan's hero profile | Atheism | FANDOM powered by Wikia
I once saw that. It was *extremely* loose interpretation.
Where?
So what? Are you saying that mythology can emerge only very slowly? Mythology can grow up around people *very* fast -- even when they are still alive.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I read there is new archeological evidence where Jesus took a dump. They are building a church around it called the Church Of The Holy Fecal Matter.
People who touch the holy crap have miraculous cures. Proof positive there was an historical Jesus.
People who touch the holy crap have miraculous cures. Proof positive there was an historical Jesus.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
There's a new book out: Superman: The Persistence of an American Icon. Probably worth a read if one is going to understand the evolution of how Jesus Tales come to be popular.
I've not yet read the book but it sounds intriguing.
I've not yet read the book but it sounds intriguing.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,128
- Location
- Cascadia
- Basic Beliefs
- Militant Agnostic...aka functional Atheist
Thank you, joedad.
Given the prevalence and persistence of superhuman icons throughout human cultures (at least, most of which I am aware), I don't think there is any question that such a possibility is well within the bounds of credible speculation. What I think fails are the excuses presented to buttress the weak claim of historicity. The burden of proof weighs upon the historicists, not the mythicists. We are all expected to assume that a historical character existed...just because. Because a set of internally inconsistent tales of superhuman deeds and transcendent compassion says this guy has amazing powers. Gimme a break.
Now we've got ruby with the 'aw shucks' approach. Y'know...'Give it a break, guys, we all know he existed....your evidence of non-existence is weak.' What is it with these lame apologists? What is the big frickin' deal if Jesus just happened to be a mythic construct? Does it interfere with anybody believing in Jesus Christ as their personal saviour? No.
Given the prevalence and persistence of superhuman icons throughout human cultures (at least, most of which I am aware), I don't think there is any question that such a possibility is well within the bounds of credible speculation. What I think fails are the excuses presented to buttress the weak claim of historicity. The burden of proof weighs upon the historicists, not the mythicists. We are all expected to assume that a historical character existed...just because. Because a set of internally inconsistent tales of superhuman deeds and transcendent compassion says this guy has amazing powers. Gimme a break.
Now we've got ruby with the 'aw shucks' approach. Y'know...'Give it a break, guys, we all know he existed....your evidence of non-existence is weak.' What is it with these lame apologists? What is the big frickin' deal if Jesus just happened to be a mythic construct? Does it interfere with anybody believing in Jesus Christ as their personal saviour? No.
James Brown
Veteran Member
It can matter quite a bit, depending on your doctrine. What does it mean that Jesus will one day "come back" if he was never here to begin with, not really? How does one have a personal relationship with a myth? If Jesus Christ is a myth, then how does Christianity mark itself as superior to other religions that embrace mythology?
Please note, I have no intention of debating these questions. I'm only making a counterpoint to your "Who cares?" claim. Ironically, C. S. Lewis put it well in Mere Christianity: