Steven Carr

'The Criterion of Embarrassment : “Since Christian authors would not invent
anything that would embarrass them, anything embarrassing in the tradition must be
true.”

Multiple Attestation : “If a tradition is independently attested in more than
one source, then it is more likely to be authentic than a tradition attested only once.”'

As has been demonstrated, if an event is missing from a later source, then that proves it is historical in the world of mainstream NT scholars as it meets the criterion of embarrassment.

Likewise, if an event is present in a later source, then that proves it is historical in the world of mainstream NT scholars as it meets the criterion of multiple attestation.

Actually, a certain James McGrath demolished the criterion of embarrasment single-handedly when he wrote 'And so that’s a good example of why someone might invent something embarrassing – to cover up something more embarrassing…’

jgoodguy

Of course, better than arguing over the wavelength of the color red or something else where there is empirical evidence.

jgoodguy

IMHO it is a problem of saying that there ain't no good evidence and going about something more productive or analyzing the literature to find what started and gave context to Christianity.

If Hoffmann is asserting what I think he is asserting , then everyone already knows the evidence is crappy, the tools are imprecise and no one expects mathematical precision.

Carrier calls out, the emperor has no clothes, the peasants respond we already know that but he is the only one we got.

DCHindley

So, Christians made up their assertion that Jesus died by crucifixion because he was really ... what? If Christians made anything up, it would be the suggestion that his execution was the result of Jewish political maneuvering motivated by envy rather than because he was a revolutionary or an unauthorized royal claimant. If you can't flatly deny the fact of a crucifixion, then you proceed to explain it away as a tragic misunderstanding rather than justified by evidence of sedition.

DCH (lunch break over, boss)

Steven Carr

So Christians would have made up suggestions that his execution was the result of political manoeuvring motivated by envy?

Good point, well made.

Matthew 27:18

For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

blastula

If Hoffman believes historians can make any historical claims about NT stories, then he should have no objection to using Bayes, since coming up with the values of the Bayesian factors is what historians have to do already when they make whatever informal probability assessments that they do. If he believes Bayes is irrelevant to studying Jesus, then he has to believe no historical claims can be made about Jesus.

Seems his reaction is a bit kneejerk.

Toto

Hoffman seems to think that hardly anything can be validly claimed about a historical Jesus.

blastula

Well, he could be wrong, and even if not, he shouldn't presume that Bayes wouldn't give a similar answer.

jgoodguy

In a perfect world he would patiently wait until the work is out and peer reviewed then politely respond. Carrier wants the work peer reviewed and that process should find any major flaws.

discordant

To be fair to Hoffmann, it was Carrier who put the tone of conversation in the gutter.