JonA

Sorry, but this is just utter nonsense. IF Jesus was invented, the invention took place well before the 4th century.

But that's not an argument for an historical Jesus.

Jon

JonA

I'm not sure who you are attempting to impress with this, but I've never really made any argument that you could possibly be addressing by shouting out the content of the synoptic gospels at me.

Who knows if there even was anything that happened in the Temple? Who's to say that the Romans would have heard of it instantly if anything did happen?

On the contrary; this is exactly what happens when the man you hoped would be king gets arrested: you realize he's a failure and disband.

You mentioned a lot of things; which one in particular are you talking about here?

Also, there is no argument being made by me for the historicity of the Jesus story; just the historicity of a Jesus.

Is this relevant?

No assumption needed here; this is as good as historical facts get.

Among other hopefuls.

It's a fine way to address the problem of Messianic redefinition.

No, it doesn't. And you haven't demonstrated this at all. The problem is:

What caused the drastic revolution in Messianic thinking in some groups of Judaism around the middle of the first century?

A solution is:

An historical Jesus.

There's really nothing in the solution that appears in the problem.

This would likely explain the poverty of probability present within so many of the Jesus Myth hypotheses.

Jon

dog-on

Of course, it is not what you think that matters here, but what Christians think... as is written in Isaiah and the Prophets... so, tell me, where do you think the idea came from?

aa5874

You are not making any sense. It has NOT even been denied by Scholars that there is evidence of MYTH and Fiction about Jesus in the NT.

Jesus was ACTUALLY described in the NT as a MYTH character from conception to ascension.

Please tell me what is the probability that a character described as MYTH, from his appearance to disappearance, was NOT a MYTH?

It is completely within reason and probability that Jesus of the NT was MYTH just as described.

Toto

That seems to be the usual assumption among people who believe in a minimal historical Jesus. So what exactly do you accept as history, and what is the source?


Then why did Christianity continue, instead of disappearing like the Messianic movements that Josephus describes?

You had said "As far as can be discerned, the Jesus movement was indistinguishable from Judaism in its earliest years. Being inconspicuous his hardly evidence for fabrication: inconspicuousness is rather what we'd expect from any start-up religious movement. " I'm just pointing out that lack of evidence, which is compatible with non-existence of the Christian movement before 70 CE.

OK, we seem to have missed some of each other's premises. What evidence is there of a drastic revolution in Messianic thinking in the middle of the first century? I think there was a drastic revolution after 70 CE and in particular in the middle of the second century after the Jews lost two wars.


I still don't see a trade off between probability and explanatory power. Are you assuming that improbable scenarios have the greatest explanatory power?

avi

a. I would sound a note of caution about any historian writing about mathematics, particularly Bayes' theorem.

b. I have no idea how anyone can apply theories of probability to analysis of forged data, and expect to arrive at meaningful results.....

avi

Toto

Carrier has a scientific background, and his field is the history of science.

avi

Hi Toto!!!

Thanks.

I am not trying to criticize Carrier. Sorry, if my last message came across that way. My supposition, which may be COMPLETELY wrong, is that most of the learned folks on this forum have no idea about Bayes' theorem, and only a modest comprehension of formal probability.

Perhaps I badly underestimate the experience of forum members.
Here's a reference that I have relied upon in the past.

When to Apply Bayes' Theorem
In my opinion, we don't know either of these sets of probabilities, in attempting to apply Bayes' theorem to answer questions of biblical provenance.

Here is an illustration of when one can satisfactorily apply Bayes' theorem to derive something potentially meaningful;

Annabel Lee plans to marry tomorrow, at an outdoor ceremony in the Judean desert. Edgar Allen Poe wonders if he should plan to attend the ceremony. In recent years, it has rained only 5 days each year. Unfortunately, the weatherman has predicted rain for tomorrow. When it actually rains, the weatherman correctly forecasts rain 90% of the time. When it doesn't rain, he incorrectly forecasts rain 10% of the time. What is the probability that it will rain on the day of Annabel Lee's wedding?

Note that the calculation below ignores questions of how the rainfall is measured, or detected. It also ignores questions of how the historical data has been gathered, and how reliable that data is. The assumption is made, in performing this calculation, that the data is 100% accurate, with a transmittal frequency ALSO of 100%, and that the physical rainfall has been perceived and the quantity accurately measured and recorded.

Solution: The sample space is defined by two mutually-exclusive events - it rains or it does not rain. Additionally, a third event occurs when the weatherman predicts rain. Notation for these events appears below.

Event A1. It rains on Annabel Lee's wedding.
Event A2. It does not rain on Annabel Lee's wedding
Event B. The weatherman predicts rain.
In terms of probabilities, we know the following:
P( A1 ) = 5/365 =0.0136985 [It rains 5 days out of the year.]
P( A2 ) = 360/365 = 0.9863014 [It does not rain 360 days out of the year.]
P( B | A1 ) = 0.9 [When it rains, the weatherman predicts rain 90% of the time.]
P( B | A2 ) = 0.1 [When it does not rain, the weatherman predicts rain 10% of the time.]
We want to know P( A1 | B ), the probability it will rain on the day of Annabel Lee's wedding, given a forecast for rain by the weatherman. The answer can be determined from Bayes' theorem, as shown below.

P( A1 | B ) = P( A1 ) P( B | A1 )
P( A1 ) P( B | A1 ) + P( A2 ) P( B | A2 )
P( A1 | B ) = (0.014)(0.9) / [ (0.014)(0.9) + (0.986)(0.1) ]
P( A1 | B ) = 0.111

Note the somewhat unintuitive result. Even when the weatherman predicts rain, it only rains only about 11% of the time. Despite the weatherman's gloomy prediction, there is a good chance that neither Edgar Allen Poe, nor Annabel Lee will perceive raindrops at her wedding.

avi

bacht

No offense Abe, but spin and Toto do know what they're talking about, and have a firm grasp of logic. You could do worse than treat them as a resource rather than antagonists.

We're all after the same thing: the best explanation for events surrounding the development of Christianity, or at least clarity about the missing pieces. Many of the senior posters here like spin, Joe Wallack et al have background in the ancient languages, secondary literature and modern scholarship.

ApostateAbe

I do indeed treat them as resources, because they really are much more knowledgeable than I am in key areas. Both of them seem to be excessively more antagonistic and personally repulsive in their styles of debate than others in the forum, though of course I am guilty to some extent of the same error. I love debating with people with their kind of knowledge, but it is very difficult for me to overlook their persistent level of personal insults. It has more to do with personal weaknesses on my part.