Grog

On his blog, Vridar is attempting an application of BT to the question of Galatians 1:19 and whether this reference is to a sibling of Jesus of Nazareth.

Putting James the Brother of the Lord to a Bayesian Test

I think he is doing a good job of it, but thought I would bring it over here. At the same time, I thought about what if this were a collective endeavor where we assign values through a community discussion. As Godfrey points out on his blog, you can end up with quite a range of possibilities. However, I think we can reduce that and eliminate some personal bias by working out the values together.

Is there interest in that?

Huon

I don't think.
The probabilities which are introduced in the formula are not seriously justified. They are only the opinion of the author.
Garbage in, garbage out.

aa5874

I find such a task completely unnecesary.

It is just mind boggling that people FAIL to utilise the AVAILABLE evidence found in Apologetic sources to resolve the claim in Galatians 1.19 and then resort to all sorts of problematic theorems.

If one wants to know who Jesus was in Apologetic sources then we MUST simply read them.

First, how was Jesus described in the very same Canon which contains Galatians 1.19.

Who was the FATHER of Jesus in the same Gospel of gMatthew which IMPLY James was the brother of Jesus???

The FAther of Jesus was the Holy Ghost.

We cannot apply Bayes theorem to Myth Fables.

There was NO attempt to historicise Jesus in the Gospels and Galatians.

It is in the very FIRST verse of Galatians that the author claimed he was NOT the apostle of an human being but of the resurrected Jesus.
See Galatians 1.1.

And further, Apologetic sources that used the Gospels and Galatians claimed Jesus was of the Seed of God.

Bayes Theorem was NOT developed for Myth Fables and resurrected beings. In the world of the miraculous all statements can be true or highly probably even if implausible and known to be fiction.

What would be useful is perhaps a LIE-DETECTOR test for Paul if he was alive.

Again, in any investigation regarding biological relationship, the father and mother of Jesus and the father and mother of James MUST be established.

The FATHER of Jesus is established in the NT as the Holy Ghost and that Jesus was God in the same Canon which contains the passage in QUESTION.

No amount of Bayes Theorem can reversed what has already been Established in the very Canon.

Galatians 1.19 is really irrelevant to the nature of Jesus.

Now, to show that it is irrelevant, Gaius the Emperor of Rome ALSO made a similar claim or that he was the BROTHER of Jupiter.

Antiquities of the Jews Gaius, the Emperor, did NOT make Jupiter a human being by claiming he was his brother.

Jupiter remains a Myth.

Bayes theorem cannot be applied to Myth fables where veracity and fallacy are without boundaries and indistinguishable.

tanya

Hi Grog.

Thanks for introducing this theme from Vridar. Those guys are working hard over there, and I tip my hat to them, for their noteworthy effort.

Bayes' theorem is named for Reverend Bayes, who used his algebraic calculations to predict horse race results, based upon data gathered from previous race results.
........................Rainy weather..............Sunny weather
HORSE A wins...........10 races.........................3 races

HORSE A loses............1 race..........................8 races

One can consult the internet for the precise formula used by Bayes to compute the probability of HORSE A winning the next race, understanding that the weather is predicted to be rainy....

So, instead of horse racing, one can find many other suitable activities, where the prior conditions are known, in order to calculate the odds of some future activity finishing as anticipated....

But, in the case of Galatians 1:19, we lack conditional priors, don't we? We wish to learn whether or not
ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου

"Iakob, brother of the lord," refers to a person, we call James, who has a genetic link to ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου (Mark 1:1).

What do we use for conditional priors? Bayes had horse race results, with weather patterns documented. What do we have with Galatians 1:19?

Unlike the horse race results, we disagree, among ourselves, on the meaning of key words in this sentence:

I interpret, as an example, ουκ ... ει μη, not as "except", but rather, at "NOT EVEN". Paul visited Jerusalem where he met no one, not even jacob. That reading is not accepted by anyone else here on the forum, or anywhere else in society. Everyone else interprets ουκ ... ει μη (literally, "none... if not") as "except".

What has this quibble to do with Bayes' theorem prediction of a genetic relationship between the son of God, and some other Palestinian Jew? There is insufficient data to be able to employ Bayes' theorem to assess this genetic linkage. There is not even enough data to clarify ουκ ... ει μη, let alone the far more controversial expression denoting genetic heritage. Since it is claimed that Jesus' father was YHWH, any fraternal relationship is rather iffy....cousin perhaps, or step brother....

Thank you, again, for the link. Their energy, imagination, and industriousness are exemplary.

sotto voce

It's a reference to the sibling of 'the Lord'. Did the author suppose that 'the Lord' was Jesus of Nazareth? He referred to 'Lord Jesus Christ' a few lines earlier, so this is possible. The name 'Jesus' was fairly common; there are four other men of that name mentioned in the NT. Three of them were long deceased at the time of writing, and the remaining one is mentioned only in passing as a follower of 'the Lord', who may have been Jesus of Nazareth.

spin

Greek speaking Jews were happy enough to make the distinction between the label "the lord" and the title "the lord of..." or "lord Jesus". This is evident in LXX Ps 110:1, "The lord said to my lord..." It is irrelevant to such a context as Gal 1:19 that Jesus is referred to as "lord Jesus" for it is titular, like the second use in Ps 110:1, whereas Gal 1:19 is like the first use. Paul's literary context used the non-titular "lord" for god. Paul certainly used it for god in the LXX citations as well as outside citations.

A further problem is the fact that Paul doesn't generally use "brother" in a biological sense but to indicate a believer in his religion. The term "brothers of the lord" is used in 1 Cor 9:5 for a group of believers with elevated status, so that the phrase itself might be honorific, indicating believers with high status, just as James is the foremost pillar of the Jerusalem community.

There is no necessary reason to believe that "brother" meant "sibling" at all.

sotto voce

The Galatians were foolish, but surely they didn't need to be told that an apostle had to be a Christian.

How is that known?

Along with James, John and Peter, Paul addressed all his male fellows as brothers. His fellow Jews, too, including the unconverted. Jesus called all his male disciples his brothers. There was no special honour. Very naughty!

And perfectly absurd. Why people waste their time on such nonsense is beyond comprehension.

The stench of right-wing Catholic ordure, it seems.

MrMacSon

Brother can means so many different things in Christian writing, but what is the probability it means fellow follower??

aa5874

We cannot be going over the same arguments about meaning of words day after day. Once we are using the NT as evidence for a human Jesus then we MUST examine the NT to find out the Parents of Jesus and the Parents of the Apostle James.

This is basic in any inquiry.

Everyone knows where it is claimed Jesus had siblings but NOBODY sees where it claimed the Father of Jesus was a Holy Ghost and was the Creator.

People here need to understand that Bayes theorem is NOT for Myth Fables.

Grog

Thank you, tanya, for your response. I appreciate your candor and congenial comport. We are all, after all, seekers of the "truth." I must say, that I have read certain views of yours that I strongly disagree with and maybe in the future we can explore those views.

Such an endeavor as I propose in the OP may seem to be hopelessly mired in such disagreements as you have raised. However, what I would predict the community would move toward is a system that would sort of average out the probabilities. So your disagreement on the point noted, would either be averaged out, or, perhaps, given a consistent, agreed upon methodology, ignored as an outlying opinion. Unless you could garner significant support from your learned colleagues here at freeratio.

That is the both the strength and the weakness of the endeavor. As one person put it, BT is reliant upon the inputs and those inputs are subjective, based on the biases of the person doing the analysis (e.g. Carrier), garbage in-garbage out. Carrier's point is that a sufficiently learned person would have the expertise and knowledge to narrow the range of the inputs, based on our known facts, to an acceptable degree of error. I, with you and others, am skeptical about that. My point is that a group process would more effectively eliminate that bias (of course, here at freeratio, our analysis would suffer from selection bias, but it could be considered a radical critique opinion). The more highly knowledgeable people we have adding their input, the better, of course. You might then argue, well, then you are getting an average, and that average might not be accurate. True, but point would be to reduce the bias of a single person.

And, none of this is saying you are wrong about your ει μη interpretation. I cannot really argue for or against that.