Ted Hoffman

I was able to get a real archaeologist who has excavated in over four continents to have a look at this thread, especially in light of Carrier's recent remarks. I hope Carrier pays attention to what is written below.

At this moment in time, Carrier is a prominent figure who commands respect from many, including me, in spite of his recent unfortunate remarks. I think it is important to remember to weigh the evidence and provide rational responses and not allow emotions to govern what we post.

I was undecided on how to handle Carrier's conjectures regarding quarrying. I am glad this expert has done so. I am currently reading what Diodorus Siculus, Strabo and Josephus wrote on the Nabateans, and some works of ANE scholars on that group of people.My response will be appearing soon enough. For now, here is the experts assesment of Carrier's response.

Jacob,

I finally took a look at the link you provided to your exchange with Carrier, and can only say that I am dismayed by the result. I assume you are the Ted Hoffman to whom Carrier addressed his vitriol. The scathing attacks he leveled against you, apparently without basis or proper premise, are simply amazing. <deleted>. Admittedly, he is more rational than Keeps, and I think more honest in that he does not purposely create as many strawmen or red herrings, <deleted>. Beyond this, though, it seems he and Keeps appear to be of the same ken. Both appeal with equal frequency and fervor to their own (unbased) authority as proof, and they seem equally ignorant of archaeological methods, theories, and operational precepts. I can understand such complete disciplinary and methodological ignorance from Keeps, who is just a self-aggrandizing crackpot enjoying the capricious
favor of a few moderators on a private list. It is appalling to see it in Carrier, however, for he bears the mantle of one of the worlds most prestigious universities, and has a principal role in several intercampus, intersystem scholarly networks. This exchange lowers my opinion of Carrier ENORMOUSLY, and I must now re-assess my citations of Carrier in my lectures. His additions to your thread are absolutely unbelievable.

As for critique, I will be as sparing as I can. Quite simply, I believe Carrier <deleted>has read some publications by Bagatti, but does not possess the necessary disciplinary understanding to interpret them adroitly. He asserts facts that mystify and bewilder me, leaving me with absolutely no idea of whence he derives them. Since I really dont know where to begin in specifically addressing his statements, I will simply follow the order of his assertions as they appear in your thread.

I have no idea of what he means by "permanent structures". When one discusses a structure as an artifact, it is, by definition, an object produced by the deployment of human technology. Your challenge seems to go unanswered here, as Carrier seems to waffle, and pretend that lithic recesses reworked for funerary purposes can be considered the objects of human manufacture. What is even more amazing is the suggestion that a pious Jewish community in 1st century CE Lower Galilee decided that boring holes in virgin rock should be the technology of choice to produce domiciliary structures in an area where natural caverns and recesses abound. If one wishes to defy all local building and cultural conventions and live in a cave near or alongside of interred corpses, why not simply use one of the many that occur naturally in that precise locus? Besides, shouldnt one be able to identify at least some evidence suggesting the location and manufacture of these "bore-hole homes", if they exist?

Beyond this, the mention of "an inexpensive synagogue" at Nazareth in the first few decades CE has my head spinning. A few years back I advised a young man who was composing his graduate thesis on the historical evolution of the synagogue, and there were a number of things arising from that experience that remain clearly fixed in my mind. One of these is that it is by no means certain that there were synagogues anywhere in Judea or Galilee at any time in the 1st century CE. If you read Evolution of the Synagogue by Kee and Cohick and much of Lee Levines work on the subject, these debates should become clearly defined for you. Some, such as Hachili and (more adroitly) Landau et al insist that synagogues, as purpose-built edifices established and recognized as centers of liturgy and worship, did not emerge until the 2nd century CE. Shaye Cohen demonstrates brilliantly in his Beginnings of Jewishness that, while we do have texts and inscriptions identifying synagogia in the Hellenistic and early Roman eras, these texts refer to IOUDAIOS communities, not to any religious edifices standing within them. Similar treatments can be found in much of Danny Boyarins work. In any event, those who seek to establish the synagogues existence prior to ca. 100CE can adduce very few archaeological finds to support their cause, with the most notable (and most frequent) inclusions involving structures found at Jericho and Gamla. I have seen some of the most vocal advocates for a high synagogue chronology state there may be as many as six such recoveries in Palestine, but never even so many as ten.

Consequently, any site that shows synagogue remains prior to 100CE is extremely rare and highly important, and one showing such a structure in pre-Roman Galilee would be of indescribable value.

As such, if there were any recovery of an Herodian synagogue at Nazareth the site would become the most important dig in Israel virtually overnight. It would guarantee not only that Nazareth existed, but also that it was the most important Galilean religious center of the trans-era period. I can assure you that no such find has been made, and Carrier is arguing from a vacuum. Also consider the oxymoronic nature of such an argument: Nazareth was a poor, muddy, backwater town of 100-300 illiterate, crude, and unrefined souls, so isolated from the outside world its populace felt no effects from the novel and regionally explosive economic boom centered at Sepphoris, less than seven kilometers away. Yet this same "hole in the wall" was one of the most religiously progressive and avant garde towns of the whole region, spearheading a religious movement that transformed IOUDAIOS religion (I refrain from saying "Judaism", in light of Boyarins Co-Production and similar models) throughout Palestine and the Diaspora. This happened, mind you, in the midst of a ritual necropolis, where typological dating of in situ artifacts demonstrates continuing interments throughout the period! (Can you imagine that the foundational synagogue in central Galilee was literally surrounded by active graves?) And surrounded by graves it would have been, for several 1st century CE loculi tombs have been found nearby, with a number of decontextualized fragments from pre-70 CE ossuaries recovered in the area.

As for "evidence [...] of workrooms, storerooms, ritual baths, and inhabited spaces", I will be charitable and assume that Carrier has read Bagattis speculations and, since that sociologist was the Franciscans primary stratum interruptor and context destroyer at Nazareth, he concludes those speculations must be factual. Carrier seems especially influenced by Bagattis retrospections on Nazareth published in 1969, and what Carrier is forgetting is that Bagattis reconstructions are incompetent, as one might expect in light of his background and training. As such, Bagattis reports have to be mined for data and reconstructed as best one can at second remove, and upon doing so no picture of 1st century occupation within these tombs emerges. It must be noted that funerary finds of the period abound in the spaces that Bagatti deemed "inhabited". Ultimately, since no disciplinary archaeologist takes the conclusions of Bagatti, Orfali, or Viaud very seriously, I dont believe Carrier <deleted>

Hmmma third century synagogue at Nazareth? I personally believe that the earliest synagogue remains date to the fourth century. Can you provide me with references on this?

Carriers definition of "quarries" as including single rooms cut into a hillside (if he can even show these exist) is certainly problematic. I invite you to consider the nature of a quarry; it is a specific enterprise conducted with the expressed purpose of extracting large, contiguous lithic substrates for secondary use. As such, quarrying involves a great deal more care and precautionary preparation/execution than does mere lithic relief or removal. Someone expanding the interior space of a stone recess is not concerned with preserving the structural integrity of the material he extracts, and generally produces highly fragmented flakes, chunks, and chips as a result. In light of their outcomes, any functional equation between the two practices is pure nonsense. There is no evidence of quarrying at Nazareth, and it is up to Carrier to provide evidence for such a novel claim.

Besides this, to suggest substantial calcite production at Nazareth runs counter to the positive indications we have for the provenance of other artifacts in the gross assemblage. Four specimens of Herodian ablution vessels were discovered at Nazareth, and Zvi Gal demonstrated convincingly that they were manufactured at the calcite production area in Reina, some 4 kilometers to the northwest. One might wonder: Why are the only 1st century stone vessels recovered at Nazareth specimens used in purification rituals (such as those performed after funerary interment) manufactured at and brought in from a distant location if Nazareth already possessed an (as yet undiscovered) thriving calcite quarry and industry? And wouldnt at least one, SINGLE piece of domestic stoneware be recoverable if it were being produced in locus for a resident population? Likewise (as you suggest) the stone working tools and implements necessary to perform this industry. And why is this community of pious, religiously vibrant 1st century Galilean Jews living in an area strewn with funerary ritual ware and ossuary fragments?

Lets ponder this further for a moment. Carrier describes the inhabitants of Nazareth as being poor, crude, isolated, and impoverished. Yet he states they are a community featuring skilled quarry men and stone workers. As Strange has demonstrated, Sepphoris was drawing the weight of skilled craftsmen away from their towns during this period, and craftsmen from the more distant community of Japha were making daily commutes northward to obtain their employment. As Strange further exposits, Nazareth would surely have been involved in the same sort of economic exchange had it existed at the time (he also notes that Sepphoris is where Jesus would have gone to synagogue, not Nazareth). Yet the people at Nazareth remained poor and isolated, according to Carrier, and chose instead to engage in a substantial stone production industry with no market or other remunerative outlet for their produce, and from which we have no surviving domestic specimens. The occupants of Nazareth had no involvement in the coin based commerce centered at Sepphoris, but they were, nevertheless, capable of indulging themselves with imported stoneware and craftsmen from places as distant as Nabatea. Beyond this, they had the luxury of pursuing such a pronounced eccentricity as carving homes out of rock, an extraordinarily costly, time consuming, and labor intensive pursuit that is unattested anywhere else in the culture or region. Are you dizzy yet? Plainly, Carriers arguments are non-factual, unreasonable, and inconsistent; as such, I disregard them.

Carriers further suggestion that a public edifice such as a synagogue is no more architecturally advanced than a carved recess is preposterous, ludicrous to an extreme. There is no necessity to calculate loads or to craft structural bearing members when carving in the cul of a cave, as there is with an erected building. No ergonomic planning is necessary, no calculations necessary to achieve separations of usable space, etc. <deleted>.

If his post did not already seem presumptuous enough, Carriers pronouncement that, "The role of a synagogue was to allow a literate rabbi to read to the illiterate people" certainly takes the cake. How in the world does he know that? With as much speculation and debate as there is regarding the spread of literacy in post-Hellenistic society, and with strong archaeological suggestions that literacy was a prerequisite for congregational praxis within the earliest synagogues (see Levine on this), how can he POSSIBLY make that statement?

This tenor continues with Carriers assertion that reuse of stone members of a constructed edifice removes all underlying evidence of the buildings existence. This is poppycock. Terrestrial disruption and disturbance, recess marks, lithic scarring and attachments, foundational remnants (have you ever seen a foundation completely removed for secondary adoption?), etc., all exist for as long as the surrounding soil remains in place. Beyond this, if there were really many tons of 1st century CE calcite structural members deployed in secondary use throughout Old Nazareth, why cant we find them? Why arent they in the logs of Viaud and Vlaminck, who excavated the site when there was almost no resident population, or in those of Bagatti, who began sounding the area in the 1920s? Barluzzi and Muzio performed surveys with Bagatti in 1951, and Bagatti renewed excavations in 1955, and at those times the town was still lightly populated. Yet we find no evidence of these secondary uses.

This next post nearly knocked me to the floor; turn of the era wine presses in the caves at Nazareth?!!!!! I can only say, "Please, show me. Show me where they existed, and where they have EVER been published!" The same goes for the bath works and kitchens. Please, just show me. Carrier does redeem himself somewhat in this post, though, for I think his point would have been adroitly made had he truncated one of his posterior statements as follows: "Indeed, it is shear insanity to suppose any people would invest tens of thousands of man-hours cuttingworkrooms and baths and chambers from the rock..."

Not much needs to be said about Carriers claim that nothing in the topographical or archaeological profile of Nazareth conflicts with the biblical account. This is, of course, a falsehood. There is no cliff proximate to Old Nazareth and the city is not built upon a hill, as is necessary for Lukes account to be accurate. The rolling summit of the nearest prominence, Jebel Kafza, is more than four hundred feet higher than and six hundred linear meters distant from the declared site of the old synagogue, and the presence of active tombs both in Old Nazareth and on the hills northern slope would have prevented a direct ascent. Beyond this, both Luke and Matthew indicate that Jesus was something of a stranger to the congregants at this synagogue, something that would have been impossible within an adult male congregation of far fewer than a hundred people. In short, the topography and proposed cultural setting of Nazareth obviate and contravene the Gospel accounts, and Carrier must be aware of this. <deleted>. .

The next paragraphs inferential claim that Byzantines attempted to convert a residential section into an area of tombs by inserting 1st century lamps and funerary ware into established living spaces is truly amusing. This also suggests that they strewed Herodian ablution vessels and pre-70 ossuary fragments about the area to disguise their work, which creates a high comedy, indeed. I just showed that portion of your thread to a colleague, with the orchestral accompaniment of my ribald commentary, and she is presently wiping away her tears of laughter. This is genuinely funny, and I will say no more about it.

Carriers apologetic rationalization that the towns present size and urban composition defies excavation is an ill-informed non-sequitor, for it is used to explain an absence of artifacts and necessary contexts being observed and documented when the town was largely unpopulated and open for excavation. I would remind Carrier (and others) that a site is considered extensively excavated long before intrusions have been made into even ten percent of its surface area. Beyond this, salvage digs have been legally required in Israel for nearly fifty years, and the vast majority of Nazareths urban development has occurred in subjection to these laws. Besides, one CAN conduct extensive excavations beneath an established, densely populated urban center, as the case of Jerusalem and my own experiences in Los Angeles amply demonstrate, and Nazareth has, in fact, been excavated in the past few decades (by both amateurs and professionals). With the salvage digs, private excavations, and early fieldwork combined, we can honestly say that Nazareth has been extensively excavated, and thereby conclude that the primary and secondary contexts Carrier asserts are, in fact, non-existent.

All of this is rendered somewhat moot, however, by the fact that the location deemed to be "Old" or "Biblical" Nazareth has been well excavated by all accounts, and if the suggestion is that the town has moved or was originally located elsewhere, then the game is over. What we are discussing is the existence of a town that has been established and certified by all church authorities to be the Gospel Nazareth from the fourth century onward, and the argument that Nazareth must be found in other (as yet unexcavated) locations makes the concurrent statement that the Gospel Nazareth was unknown to locals in the first centuries CE. Either way, 1st century CE Nazareth becomes a phantom, and we can safely discount its historicity along with the Gospel accounts that assert it.

As for the textual and linguistic comments of the succeeding paragraph on linguistics, I will withhold direct comment. My training in Greek is limited to two years of Attic, and I dont like to tread into areas where my expertise will not support me. I will say, however, that the most convincing arguments I have encountered indicate that the Nazareth reference in Mark is an interpolation, and I will continue to regard it is such.

Carrier follows with a paragraph that I believe marks the true nadir <deleted>. . Carrier stated previously that "the NT texts say nothing […] false about Nazareth,", which you adroitly trump by noting that the terrain of Nazareth provides "...no option for throwing someone off a cliff". Incredibly, unbelievably, Carrier responds to you by observing that the Talmud(!) does not state that a man must be thrown from a cliff!!! Mind you, GLuke does not claim that the thronging congregation at Nazareth sought to mete prescribed rabbinical justice upon Jesus, nor does it site any other codes of penal or social governance; it states that members of the maddened crowd endeavored to drag Jesus to a cliff abutting the hill upon which Nazareth was built and throw him off of it, pure and simple! Carrier may as well have been reciting from the U.S. Marine Corps Manual of Martial Discipline for all the pertinence he demonstrated, and in the same regard I should also mention that the Talmud states no requirement that a child be taken to Disneyland for his/her birthday. <deleted>.

I won't note the rest of this exchange because it is essentially more of the same. My interest was piqued by Carriers mention of Kloner, as I presented on Kloner a few years ago and would like to have seen more of precisely what he was addressing here. Since he clipped the preceding post so short, however, I am unable to comment any further. I have seen him critique Kloner elsewhere, though, and his critiques were right on target.

I will wrap this up with some general and somewhat discursive observations that I feel must be made on this subject. Nazareth does not lie on any ancient trade routes, and is physically isolated from nearby thoroughfares. From the inner trunk of the Via Maris one is unable to see ancient Nazareth beyond the crest of Jebel Kafza, and along its route one may come no closer than 2.5 kilometers to Old Nazareths nearest extremity. Nazareth is not directly accessible from the Via Maris, and in Herodian times its only access from the south was by way of the foot trace that wound its way first northeast then west some 2000 meters from the town of Japha. This trace was not improved until after 30CE, when the Romans sought to create a shortcut between the newly established city of Tiberius and the Jezreel Valley to the west. As Baird mentions in his popular publications, Nazareth would have been "of no account to traders" in the Herodian era, and any talk of Nazareth existing as a "trader town" or "caravansary" is pure drivel, absolute intellectual pablum.

Its extreme isolation and difficult access, combined with its abundance of natural caves, fissures, and recesses, no doubt accounts for the locations use as a ritual necropolis for thousands of years. Ritual interments have been well documented dating back to the beginning of MBI, and recoveries made just a few years ago indicate we may move the terminus a quo of this tradition back into EBIII/EBIV. We know that interments within this necropolis continued throughout the first century CE, effectively trumping any theories of an established, multi-generational community of pious Jews existing there at the turn of the era. Trans-era Jews did not live in caves, but they did construct necropolises within them, as the findings at Nazareth, Kiryat Tivon, Jerusalem, et alibi demonstrate. Further, all people living within a radius of Sepphoris sufficient to include Nazareth were obliged to engage in substantial numismatic exchange, and any site that inhabited this milieu would necessarily yield contemporary coinage. Old Nazareth was never the site of a major military campaign, as the artifactual record firmly attests. As such, the garbage ruminations of <deleted> such as Rochelle Altman and others on the Jesus Mysteries list may be categorically discarded.

On this note, I hope you paid careful attention to Altmans response to you on the list. You asked her to comment on a proposal that an artifact originated prior to a fixed date and she responded with an endorsement that featured a negative margin! If this were not ludicrous enough, it is also painfully obvious that she had neither read nor was familiar with the work upon which you invited comment, yet she commented anyway! <deleted>

As for your query itself, I invite you to carefully regard the publication history of Negevs encyclopedia. If you go back to earlier editions of this tome, prior to Shimon Gibsons involvement, you will find no mention of Nazareth. I know for a fact that the motivating factor for this was that Negev himself does not find anything of archaeological importance at Nazareth during the biblical epoch, only some tombs. This changed when Silberman was replaced on the masthead by Gibson, who is a competent archaeologist but is also a shamelessly artful marketeer and promoter of tours to the Holy Land. The Nazareth section in the most recent edition of the encyclopedia was wholly composed and contributed by Gibson, who admittedly relies on Bagatti for his identification of the calcite bases that Carrier claims were constituent to a synagogue.

Now, relative to these bases (if that is indeed what they are), I invite you further to consider the fact that there are no full inscriptions on them, only work marks. Since Nabatean is only a slightly adapted form of Aramaic, I would challenge anyone to tell me on what uniform bases all 1st century CE Nabatean work marks can be positively discerned from Aramaic ones (I know a specialist in the field who affirms that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between Nabatean and Aramaic in fully developed texts if they have been removed from their native contexts). Even if we accept that these work marks are Nabatean, however, that still does not render any assistance in dating these items.

It must be remembered that the Romans annexed Nabatea in 106CE, after which Trajan began an extraordinary effort to expand trade throughout the region. He constructed a highway connecting Damascus with the Red Sea, and a trunk of this branched off to the Mediterranean through Galilee. We know that Nabateans came north and west with this work, into regions that included Galilee. We also know that Nabatean colonists came into Galilee as a result of Hadrians effort to de-Judaize Palestine following the Bar Kochba revolt some years later. How can anyone know that the calcite bases cannot be attributed to these later activities? How does anyone know what their provenance is at all? I have never seen a single shred of evidence that even remotely requires these bases to be Herodian; they could just as easily have been manufactured either locally or in Nabatea at any time into the third century. Resultantly, I find no good reason to throw the balance of good, discernible evidence into the trash just to accommodate the whimsy that others choose to attach to these objects.

I applaud your persistence and fortitude, and must admit they exceed my own. If I were to be subjected to such a withering diatribe, I doubt I would continue the correspondence. I don't know if my comments will help you, but I hope they do.

All the best!

Peter Kirby

Jacob, why are you publishing anonymous texts that attack IIDB user Carrier, and in a less-than-polite way? I couldn't read all of it (I got as far as when he said that Carrier had a high schooler's knowledge of archaeology). I think that a moderator should review this. At least, I can't imagine that Carrier would want to continue in this way.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

This has been an interesting (heh, "spirited") exchange.

I am wondering if the author of the piece written to you minds being quoted by name, Ted. Perhaps you could ask.

There were some very credible things stated there, to be sure, but it seems the "expert witness" card was played at the opening and it would help me some to know that for sure.

There are some points for which this would matter - for example whether rock was "quarried" vs. simply excavated and resulting in slag. My own limited experience in operating heavy equipment in modern quarries suggests to me "quarry" is the wrong term, but I do not know the site nor ancient methods of quarrying.

I take the additional lack of quarried material nearby to be significant, but again this rests on expertise of the discussant.

I do appreciate the points put forward nevertheless, and am wondering if we might get a name here.

Amaleq13

The subject of an anonymous rebuttal is being discussed and will be addressed. Meanwhile, if this discussion is to continue, the insults have to STOP. It should not be necessary to remind intelligent people that personal attacks have no place in a rational discussion. They only serve to distract from the evidence and argument presented.

-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

youngalexander

Compiled by Alexander Young
Having found the discussion in this thread of great interest, I sort to compile a quick means of finding the various themes which have arisen. Perhaps others may find this useful.

ABBREVIATIONS:
DMT.......Doherty Mythicist Theory
BBC........Big Bang Christianity (single event startup)
EDT........Earl Doherty Theory (ie. DMT and ~BBC)

Texts:
AoI........Ascension of Isaiah
TJM.......The Jesus Myth, G.A.Wells
TJP.......The Jesus Puzzle, ED

Some of the players:
A13........Amaleq13
AC..........andrewcriddle
BD..........badger3k
BM..........Bernard Muller
CL..........Celsus
FG..........freigeister
GD..........GakuseiDon
GG..........gurugeorge
IC...........ichabod crane
KM..........Killer Mike
LM..........Layman
PK..........Peter Kirby
RC..........Richard Carrier
SC..........S.C.Carlson
SP..........spin
TC..........the cave
TH.........Ted Hoffman
TT.........Toto
VK.........Vorkosigan

A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE DISCUSSION

Pg 1, #1 - #25
#1, 02 Aug 03 ...........Peter Kirby (PK) issues challenge
#2 - #10 ..................Clarifications & acceptance
#11, 14 Aug 04 .........Ted Hoffman (TH, aka Jacob Aliet) mythicists still waiting!
#12 - #17 ................Various renegs, take-ups & argy-bargy re EDT mostly by TH
#18, 14 Aug 04 ..........PK mentions B.Muller (BM) review & gives URL
#19 - #25 .................More discussion by TH, Vorkosigan (VK), Amaleq13 (A13, BC&H Mod) and others

Pg 2, #26 - #50
#26, 04 Mar 05 ..........TH wants to know what's going on?
#27 - #31 .................Various apologies, drop-outs/take-ups
#32, 09 Mar 05 ...........Layman (LM) gives multiple links to reviews of various parts of EDT & MJ/HJ
#33, 10 Mar 05 ..........TH comments upon BM review & presents entire text of Richard Carrier's (RC) reply
#34 - #38 .................Various comments by TH, VK
#39, 10 Mar 05 ..........andrewcriddle (AC) comments upon RC’s take on AoI parallel in EDT
#40 - #50 ................TH, LM, VK comment re AoI


Pg 3, #51 - #75
#51, 11 Mar 05 ..........the cave (TC) ‘thinking of writing a review’
#52 - #53 .................re Q & HJ in TJM
#54, 11 Mar 05 ..........AC & AoI
#55 - #56 .................TJM
#57, 12 Mar 05 ...........ichabod crane (IC) re BM & EDT
#58 - #74 .................TH, IC, AC, VK, A13, KM & others re Q, MJ/HJ, AoI, Gmark, etc
#75, 13 Mar 05 ...........PK updates BM link


Pg 4, #76 - #100
#76 - #90 .................IC, VK, AC, KM, A13, TH wide ranging as above
#91, 17 Mar 05 ...........Celsus (CL) supports AC against RC on AoI
#92 - #100 ...............TH, CL, AC & gurugeorge (GG) comment on AoI, RC set upon by AC & CL


Pg 5, #101 - #125
#101 - 104, 18 Mar 05 .GG, CL, badger3k comment on AoI
#105, 18 Mar 05 ..........RC replies re Inanna reincarnated in hell & concedes the point.
#106 – #108 ...............TH & CL re ideal types etc and CL introduces ‘structuralism’/AoI
#109, 19 Mar 05 ..........zaitzeff (ZZ) who has NOT read TJP refutes EDT
#110, 19 Mar 05 ..........A13 replies to ZZ re ‘brother of the Lord’ & ‘born of woman’
#111 - #121 ...............AC & CL with long debate on ‘structuralism’/AoI using ED quotes, VK & TH reply, GG butts in, CL(#116) again, AC, CL, TH(#120), CL
#122, 21 Mar 05 ..........RC replies in order to clarify his position re simbolism & EDT
#123 - #125 ...............freigeister (FG) recommends Brunner to RC, Toto (TT) comment


Pg 6, #126 - #150
#126 - #140 ...............TT, A13, RC, AC re Brunner & AC recommends Schweitzer, PK, AC re simbolism, PK, RC re old sources, AC, FG, CL & VK re Brunner
#141, 22 Mar 05 ..........TH thanks CL, then gets stuck into him re archons, structuralism & lots else besides
#142 - #148 ...............Various replies GakuseiDon (GD), CL getting fed up, TH suggests he write critique of EDT, TC, CL will not review EDT suggest TH study structuralism, TH will give it a go
#149 - 150, 22Mar 05 ...RC answers FG, RC replies to TH re Essenes, Ebionites, Philo etc


Pg 7, #151 - #175
#151, 22 Mar 05 .........ZZ is back on ‘brother’ and Paul
#152 .........................PK re CL & structuralism
#153 - #156 ..............ZZ more of same, A13 replies, VK butts in
#157 - #159 ..............PK & TH re structuralism
#160 - #161 ..............ZZ ‘born of woman’ & Paul, A13 replies
#162, 24 Mar 05 .........TH addresses RC re BBC, pre-Christian sects, Peter’s gang#163 - 164 ................GD butts in re defining Xanity, TH replies
#165, 26 Mar 05 .........RC makes his formal reply (quite long)
#166, 26 Mar 05 .........VK, TH, A13 & TC all briefly reply to RC
#171 - 173, 28 Mar 05 .RC replies to VK, then TH, then A13
#174 ........................A13 replies to RC
#175, 28 Mar 05 .........RC replies to TC


Pg 8, #176 - #200
#176, 28 Mar 05 .........RC replies to A13 re Nazareth & Mark 1:9
#177 - #182 ..............S.C.Carlson (SC), A13, VK, TT & spin (SP) discuss Nazareth (text)
#183, 29 Mar 05 .........TH discusses Peter/Cephas
#184 ........................TH discusses Nazareth (archeological)
#185, 30 Mar 05 .........TH discusses RC BBC, accuses RC of post hoc fallacy
#186 - #188, 30 Mar 05 TH, A13 exchange on RC meanings
#189 - #190, 31 Mar 05 TH further musings re Xanity origins
#191 - #193, 05 Apr 05 .RC reply to SC, A13, TH re Nazareth
#194 - #195 ...............A13, SP reply re Nazareth (text)
#196/7, 05 Apr 05 ........RC re BBC, uses Bayes Th (extensive)
#198, 06 Apr 05 ..........TH replies re Nazareth (acheological)
#199 - #200 ...............A13 dissapointed that RC reckons ‘no one knows what they are doing’ in Nazareth (text) debate; spin says ditto, so there!


Pg 9, #201 - #225
#201 - #204, 06 Apr 05 TH re Naz (archy), RC re Naz (archy 1st, text 2nd then back to archy) VK Naz (achy), TH Naz (archy)
#205 - #207, 07 Apr 05 A13 clarifies RC re Crossan to TH, TH replies at considerable length re Crossan’s speculations
#208, 08 Apr 05 ..........VK replies to TH re Q
#209, 08 Apr 05 ..........SP on Nazareth (text)
#210 - #222 ..............TH, SP, A13, TH, A13, TH brief discuss Nazareth (mostly archy)
#223, 10 Apr 05 .........TH re BBC (lengthy)
#224 - #225 ..............A13 & SP Nazareth (text)


Pg 10, #226 - #229
#226, 10 Apr 05 ..........BD
#227 .........................SP Nazareth (text)
#228, 16 Apr 05 ..........TH structuralism, he’s read up on it & it does not apply to EDT
#229, 17 May 05 .........TH final installment of ED reply to BM is available – comments
#230, 22 Jun 05 ..........RC reiterates (with extreme exasperation) position re Nazareth (mostly archy, some text) and Historical methodology and DMT re BBC/~BBC; bids debate adieu!
#231, 30 Jun 05 ..........TH – posts anonymous ‘expert archeological’ opinion re Nazareth
#232, 30 Jun 05 ..........PK & rlogan query anonymity
#232 .........................A13 looking into anonymous posting

Ted Hoffman

Richard Carrier Writes
I would like to respond to this.
The argument "very little of Nazareth has been excavated" has been addressed adequately.
The "cheap material" argument has been addressed too.
AFAIK, Negev regards classical Nabatean and Aramaic as essentially the same. But I write more about this below.
I substantially address the "stylistic architecture" argument and Nabatean workmen argument below.
But first.

Carrier wrote:
This is correct.

About Nabatean Inscriptions
This argument lacks factual support.
First of all, we have no reason to believe that Nabatean success and influence was at its "height" during the time of Jesus. [how do you gauge the height of their success anyway - these are people who established themselves as great desert traders from 2nd cent BCE to early second cent CE!] What this means is that we have no way of narrowing down to the period on when the Nabateans were most likely to inscribe a synagogue in Nazareth. It is also unclear what Carrier means when he writes "success". Success in trade? in spreading Nabatean culture, beliefs and way of life? success in warfare/millitary strength?
How does he calibrate the levels of Nabatean success accross these 300 or so years? What are his sources? Or is he arguing from a vaccum and using himself as an authority?

Secondly, if we had to state when the Nabateans were at the height of their success, it would be 168CE IMO. That is when they had gained enough wealth and power to alter their nomadic ways. That is when they got a King. That was the time they had acquired enough wealth to feel that they had something to lose. As an analogy, the Israelites also lacked a King during their semi-nomadic phase. But once they started planting crops and having orchads and the like, they had something to lose. Diodorus states that people who plant crops "become vulnerable to powerful men, who can compel their obedience". Vulnerable to the Philistines, the Israelites chose Saul to protect them.

Based on this, we can state that the height of success for the Nabateans was 168CE, even though, ironically, they were under Roman rule [their realm had been annexed by Trajan from 106CE, when he conquered them. It appears that the rich in Rome were exchanging their wealth with the frankincense and myrrh, which the Nabateans had].

Thirdly, the strength of the Nabateans lay in their command of the desert and in trade routes, which they controlled and ferried their perfumes and spices through. This was as a result of their advancement in water-storage technology. In things like water hydraulic systems, dams, ceramic pipes and siphons. Not writing. Diodorus says that their ability to live in a parched desert made their dwelling place impenetrable. Since classical Nabatean heavily used Aramaic, it would be quite difficult to differenciate Aramaic writing from Nabatean script.

Fourth, history indicates that the Nabateans settled between the ded sea and the red sea (at Edom). Not at Nazareth. This makes the prospect of Nabatean workmen in Nazareth inscribing on a synagogue in Nabatean script, instead of Aramaic, the lingua franca of the region in the early first century, very unlikely.

Fifth, if the Nabateans would be doing anything in Nazareth, it would probably be trading or digging wells or dams, not building synagogues because they were nomadic traders whose strength lay in trade and water conservation, not building permanent structures.
This makes Carrier's claim of Nazarean workmen erecting synagogues with calcite columns in Nazareth before 30CE very unlikely.

Sixth, synagogues started becoming common in the second century and later. As you now know, scholars like Hachili and Landau state that synagogues, as "purpose built edifices established and recognized as centers of liturgy and worship only emerged in the second century. This means that it is unlikely that the alleged calcite columns can be dated to the first century. In addition, scholars like Cohen have demonstrated that synagogues, in the first century context, were communities/gatherings, not architectural edifices.

Incorrect. As you now know, a permanent structure "as an artifact, is, by definition, an object produced by the deployment of human technology".

This is not history. This is archaeology. You are making conjectures that have no factual basis. Evidence of calcite columns is not evidence of the existence a first century synagogue. You need more than 4 calcite columns to constitute evidence of an early first century synagogue in Nazareth.

What is needed is a secure way of dating the four calcite columns to the first century. Lacking that, you could have preponderance of evidence of synagogues being present in Nazareth or the region. Lacking that, you could have a terminus ad quem of the four-corner synagogue style to secure your stylistic argument.
You have none. This the argument has no leg to stand upon.

To be sure, when excavations are done, the site profiles, where human settlements have been, should be consistent with human habitation, not "a clear demonstration that the prevailing use of all spatial domains associated with a site being funerary in nature". The artifactual features are not characteristic of a domestic context.

I have also learnt that "one of the most fundamental propositions underlying archaeological science is that human beings must interact with their environment, the process of which inevitably leaves a residue...cities do not exist without roads, without buildings or structural foundations, without substantial interruption of terrain at depths sufficient to support the structures requisite for community life, without signature chemical alteration in surrounding soils, and without creating domestic artifactual contexts and data sets. Not even smal towns and hamlets can do this"

As has been asked, why were these people living admist tombs - was there lack of land? The Jews had strict laws in the Mishnah regarding coming close to tombs, touching graves and so on.

The Four-Corner Stylistic Argument

You have used the four-corner placement of the calcite columns to date the columns to the early first century. The 3rd CE synagogue at Aegina has four corners, just like several other 3rd and 4th Cent synagogues. Thus you have no basis for limiting or terminating the period during which the 4-corner style was used, to the early period of the first century.

The assumption underpinning this question, which is that the Jews dug the faces of rocks is without any factual or rational basis.

Please provide evidentiary support for this claim.

This is incorrect. Not a single stoneware has been recovered at the site that can be dated to the early period of the first century. No domestic specimens have been found. Calcite ablution vessels found in Nazareth were manufactured at Reina, 4 Kilometres away from Nazareth. This finding indicates that Nazareth did not have calcite quarries or stone workers or skilled quarry men. Thus, we have no reason to agree with this argument.

As has been clearly demonstrated, the idea of poor people carving homes out of rock is absurd. It is a costly, labor-intensive excercise that is not known to have been carried out anywhere in Judea.

Plus, this idea is clearly incorrect: quarrying demands extraction of huge, contiguous rock substrates for secondary usage, which requires care and fairly specialized tools and skill, while "digging" a rock face to create a lithic recess requires less care and is an excercise that produces stones of irregular size and dimension which have no equivalent value to the stones that have been quarried. This idea is either dead wrong, or has a novel meaning of the word "quarrying".

The funerary lamp is dated c. 50CE. Are you relying on Bagatti for this? We await you citations of archaeological reports, not reports by a Franciscan sociologist, on the rest.
Why is it probable? Your basis for holding this idea remains obscure. As such it has no more weight than a rabbit pulled out of a hat.

I now know that this empty assertion is wrong. Carrier, I specifically asked for references, not a recitation of the same assertion. Are you relying on yourself, a historian, as an authority on this archaeological question?

Viaud, Vlaminck, Barluzzi, Muzio and others started surveying the area much earlier before Bagatti, while the area was still thinly populated.
And even if we assumed that the place indeed had a resident population, we know that that couldn't, by itself, stop archaeological surveys.

It does. see the dissimilarity critertion, which is used in NT scholarship, specifically the JSeminar, to deteremine the authentic sayings of Jesus.

About the Cliff and Mishnah
I will backtrack back to the initial points made on the issue. up to the present.

Carrier:TH:TH:
Carrier:
TH:
Carrier:
This whole Mishnah theory is a conjecture whose weight the texts cannot support. Luke says "cliff" and I have cited Luke. To sneak in "brow", then insist that a mob was following the Mishnah is to theorize through leaps of logic. Luke does not state that the actions of the incensed crowd were guided by the Mishnah.

Thank you for your time Carrier. I do not agree that you have wasted your time by participating here. It has given me a chance to re-examine my ideas and I have learnt a lot from you. I hope you will once again find time to grace our forum. I may not agree with you on certain points, but I respect you and I am impressed by your erudition, brilliance and articulation. When we disagree. it is not because "nobody listens" as you state. On the contrary.

spin

I'm sure Richard feels like he's suffering from repetitive stress, but this adds nothing, clarifies nothing, nor deals with the problems regarding Nazareth/Nazara and Capernaum in any way whatsoever:

Yeah, let's forget about Capernaum being where Jesus was at home (Mark using a Greek idiom to express the fact). Let's forget about the fact that the earliest levels of the other synoptics use Nazara. Let's forget about the difficulty of deriving nazarenos from Nazareth (and this involves a number of problems: 1 - the final part of the town name isn't in nazarenos - like calling someone from London "Londese" -; and 2 - the Greek has a zeta in nazarenos while nearly every other example of the Hebrew TSADE in transliteration ends up a sigma).

Richard simple doesn't deal with facts and prefers wishful thinking:

The simplest explanation remains that Mark says Nazareth and Nazarene because Jesus really was from Nazareth and really was a Nazarene.

Only when you leave out a lot of the facts does it become the simplest explanation. And then you still simply have no way of explaining Nazara at all.

Why does Matthew move Jesus from Nazara to Capernaum? Why is there early tradition evidence that Matthew used Nazara in 2:23 (from memory, the bit about why Jesus would be called a Nazarene)?


spin

youngalexander

(1) INTRODUCTION
Peter Kirby (PK) initiated this thread almost two years ago. Since then there has been nary a rebuttal in sight. Thus I thort that I might pitch in, lend a hand, and supply a rebuttal of sorts. Mind you, it may not be quite what most expect. As will readily become apparent I am no ancient historian, merely an ancient physicist. I wish to make some observations concerning the debate. The rebuttal is simply a consequence of the main thrust of my comments.

We have been royally entertained with discussions of B Muller’s review of Earl Doherty’s Theory (EDT). A theory which might be sed to consist of Doherty’s Mythicist Theory (DMT), which argues a Mythical Jesus (MJ) rather than a Historical Jesus (HJ), and a diverse Christian origin, instead of a Big Bang Christianity (BBC). I have derived a good deal of enlightenment from the sections involving Richard Carrier (RC) and various others, primarily Ted Hoffman (TH), concerning the BBC hypothesis. Altho it did seem at times that the thread had become a rebuttal of the RCT. What struck me about this was that RC defines Christianity in such a way that implies that the propositions HJ/MJ and BBC/~BBC are independent. Thus they may each be examined separately without reference to the other. TH regards them as indissolubly linked, thus requiring a holistic treatment.

While not canvassing any particular view, I wish to explore the logic of these positions to see where they might lead.

There have also been a number of side issues, some of which have generated a certain amount of acrimonious debate. I pass over these without comment, except to ask can anything good come out of Nazareth?


(2) DEFINITIONS AND DIFFERENCES
RC defines Christianity as consistent with “Romans 16:25-26 and 1 Cor 15:3-5�.

RC claims that his definition allows for both combinations of HJ/MJ and BBC.
Thus #196(2)
Presumably this extends to ~BBC as well since the definition does not apply to BBC exclusively and he allows both HJ & MJ as possible under the definition.
Thus #196(6)
His use of Bayes’ Theorem in #196(4) to estimate the probabilities of BBC/~BBC makes no mention of HJ/MJ which implies that he regards the propositions as independent. This appears to be confirmed by his discussion of the joint probabilities in #230.

Irrespective of the above justification, I shall assume a hypothetical position whereby the propositions HJ/MJ and BBC/~BBC are independent.

Either I have missed it, or TH does not supply a formal definition of Christianity. Nevertheless his approach seems to be rather broader than that of RC which he specifically rejects.
Thus #223
and
and
altho he does not actually claim this definition for himself.

TH also says that the propositions HJ/MJ and BBC/~BBC are dependent.
Thus #223
Altho TH does not define Christianity, he seems to imply that ~BBC is an essential part of the Mythicist position. Yet is this really so? A Mythical Jesus surely means just that, a non-Historical Jesus. It is not necessary to define Christianity such that MJ and ~BBC are dependent. Yet TH wishes to do so. Perhaps because he thinks that ~BBC is good evidence of MJ. By adopting such a position the Mythicist must deal with a union of the evidence for HJ/MJ and BBC/~BBC which in practical terms means a great deal more evidence to satisfy and a considerably more difficult case to argue.

By contrast, the reductionist methodology which has HJ/MJ and BBC/~BBC independent is more facile because it provides a simplification of the debate, clarifies the lines of argument, differentiates the evidence to be examined and allows for a stepwise resolution of the problem. What problem? The origin of Christianity problem, of course. In fact, IIUC that is just what RC has been at some pains to tell us!!


(3) BIG BANG CHRISTIANITY
I would like to begin with RC’s post #196 on pg 8. RC decided to clarify his position re BBC and in section(4) does so by use of Bayes’ Theorem. It might be convenient to reproduce the expression with definitions, since it extends over several paragraphs in post#196 as RC explains the various terms. I have also taken the liberty of removing the unnecessary ][ brackets in the denominator in order to rectify a typo. Thus if,

E = Historical Evidence
H = BBC Hypothesis
B = BB background information

P(H/E&B) = P(H/B) x P(E/H&B) / [P(H/B) x P(E/H&B) + P(~H/B) x P(E/~H&B)]……....(1)

where
P(H/E&B) is the probability of H given both E and B
P(H/B) is the prior probability of H “without reference to evidence for the specific case at hand, but is derived from the frequency of causes for comparable events.�
P(E/H&B) is the “probability of all the current evidence existing as it is on the hypothesis that BBC� or the probability of E given both H and B.
P(~H/B) is the prior probability of not H
P(E/~H&B) is the probability of E given both not H and B

RC then proceeds to estimate the various probabilities and produce justifications for them. The upshot is that he finds P(H/E&B) = 0.88 ~ 0.9 & thus P(~H/E&B) = 0.12 ~ 0.1 and sees no way that the prior probabilities [P(H/B) = 0.66] > [P(~H/B) = 0.33] might be reversed.

TH disagrees with this and declares
This is clearly a mistake since the prior probability P(~H/B) is “without reference to evidence for the specific case at hand, but is derived from the frequency of causes for comparable events.� Thus TH’s “competing factions and several different beliefs about Jesus� is irrelevant for prior probability.

However, let us adopt a hypothetical Mythicist position. Suppose that P(~H/E&B) = 0.65 and thus P(H/E&B) = 0.35 were to be claimed. In this case P(E/~H&B) = 0.9 and P(E/H&B) = 0.4 would do it. How could E possibly have these probabilities for ~BBC and BBC? By defining Christianity in such a way that the “mythicist position argues for a riotous diversity� This is the only way of producing such a result.

It appears that we have two separate estimates of P(H/E&B) and P(~H/E&B) which we might compare. Not so!! The definitions of Christianity are radically different and the evidentiary basis is likely to be as well. What we have is two horses of a different color. The first is probabilistically independent of HJ/MJ. The second is dependent upon HJ/MJ.


(4) HISTORICAL/MYTHICAL JESUS
Suppose that we were to subject the proposition of a HJ to the same type of analysis as for BBC. I do not claim this analysis to be rigorous, it is a demonstration for the purposes of the next section. It is conducted more in the spirit of following the logic espoused in the quotes above. Suppose further that we adopt a highly skeptical set of conclusions regarding the evidence for a HJ. I am not claiming these as those of the DMT, but perhaps they are not so distant.

A Very Brief Summary of the Evidence for a Historical Jesus.
1. Non-Christian:
Only Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus are worth considering. The first three may provide evidence for Christianity, but provide none for a HJ. Josephus is fatally compromised by the Christian interpolation in Antiquities 18.3.3. There are numerous telling arguments dismissing the remainder of this section and that of 20.9.1 as evidence for HJ. There is virtually no non-Christian evidence for a HJ. (Us skeptics do not go in for absolutes!)

2. Christian except recognised Pauline Epistles:
As historical documents these texts have undergone a decline over the past two centuries. In particular the Gospels, once thort independent eyewitness accounts, are now widely regarded as allegoric fables. Mark was the first to be written post the 1st Jewish war and is based largely upon the OT. Matthew, Luke & John are latter and based upon Mark, the OT and possibly other documents of indeterminate historical value. Each has been designed to meet the theological requirements of their author and target readership. What historical material may remain is so obfuscated by absurdities, contradictions and embellishments as to be virtually impossible to extract.

3. Pauline Epistles:
Apart from the obscurity of ‘born of women’, ‘brother of the Lord’ and a ‘Lord’s Supper’ the increasingly important Paul seems to know nothing of a HJ. The DMT in particular has called this entire body of evidence into question. Further, if Paul does not know a HJ, then neither do Cephas & gang, and that is most peculiar.

So to Bayes’ Theorem, giving HJ/MJ the treatment. Let:

E = Historical Evidence
H = HJ hypothesis
B = Background information

then
P(H/E&B) = P(H/B) x P(E/H&B) / [P(H/B) x P(E/H&B) + P(~H/B) x P(E/~H&B)]……..(2)

where
P(H/E&B) is the probability of HJ given both E and B
P(H/B) is the prior probability of HJ “without reference to evidence for the specific case at hand, but is derived from the frequency of causes for comparable events.�
P(E/H&B) is the “probability of all the current evidence existing as it is on the hypothesis that HJ� or the probability of E given both H and B
P(~H/B) is the prior probability of MJ
P(E/~H&B) is the probability of E given both MJ and B

The prior probability P(H/B) is ‘derived from the frequency of causes for comparable events’. The comparable events being pre-war messianic Jewish sects. As luck would have it, the recently published ‘The Empty Tomb’ (TET) contains a list of these sects in ch 5.2 - by a certain RC. He notes some Hemerobaptists as having John the Baptist as Christ and Herodians as having Herod – both historical. Also Ossaeans with a pre-Christian heavenly Christ and Samaritans with Moses – both mythical. I did not know if the list of sects with a Christ is meant to be exhaustive so I checked with the Catholic Encyclopedia (CEn) and the Wiki. The CEn has Nasaraeans with Manda de Hayye as a mythical Christ. This is not much of a statistical base and some of them are somewhat contentious. Nevertheless it will serve my purpose. Thus P(H/B) = 0.4 and P(~H/B) = 0.6.

P(E/H&B): The non-Christian evidence would weigh heavily, but there is none. On the other hand no evidence is not that surprising. Stark in ‘The Rise of Christianity’ claims that Christians constituted less than 0.013% of the Roman Empire by 100CE and only 0.0023% in 50CE. Stark also says that the new sect would have attracted a higher proportion of privileged and thus literate followers than the population as a whole. This being so, it is difficult to see why the Christian texts have to resort to so much fabulous material. Paul had no difficulty in writing, what was wrong with the pillars and the new converts? Then of course there is the oral tradition. It is not that there may not be some historical remnants in the NT say, but that they are so befuddled as to provide little certainty, especially concerning the climactic events. The most credible evidence should come from Paul, but he says nothing. It may be that as J.P.Holding has it, Paul operated upon a ‘non-disclosure’ policy. Unfortunately this does nothing for the historical case. P(E/H&B) = 0.3 is the best I can make of it.

P(E/~H&B): The MJ should occasion no non-Christian evidence, which is the case. On the other hand, the same argument as above applies. It may have just slipped thru. Still, there is no negative evidence, which would weigh heavily against MJ. The NT (ie. the sacred scripts) would have to be invented out of whatever there was to hand, which appears to have been the case. With the Jerusalem church dispersed and the pillars all gone, allegoric flesh could be sketched upon the MJ and the NT fits this scenario quite well. It would not take much by way of consistency and verifiable Roman/Jewish procedure to put the skids under this, but what we find is confusion, contradiction and embellishment. That Paul would not have found many occasions to cite Jesus’ teachings and to mention details of his life seems beyond belief, as ED has so eloquently argued. This only makes sense if Paul’s Christ is a MJ. The minimal number of seeming fleshly type references may be explained by the prevailing Platonic milieu and provide no real negative evidence. P(E/~H&B) = 0.9 is thus the estimate.

Hey, it’s a demonstration! Don’t get so uptight. Now to grind the handle.

P(H/E&B) = 0.4 x 0.3 /[ 0.4 x 0.3 + 0.6 x 0.9 ] = 0.12 / 0.66 ~ 0.2

Thus
P(~H/E&B) = P(M/E&B) = 0.8

Now you have to admit that this is a good result for the Mythical case, and thus for the DMT, if it chooses to travel this route. OK, it may be a little too good to be true, but it was a damn sight easier to argue than the whole EDT would be!! Let us proceed to the main event.


(5) ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY & A REBUTTAL (of sorts)
The probability of a joint event of two events J and B is P(J and B) = P(J) x P(B|J) where P(B|J) is the probability of B given J.
If the events J and B are independent then P(B|J) = P(B).

(A) For independent events J and B, P(J and B) = P(J) x P(B)
1. P(HJ) = 0.2 and P(MJ) = 0.8
2. P(BBC) = 0.9 and P(~BBC) = 0.1
Note: Only independent events & probabilities allowed!

There are four cases.
P(J and B) = P(HJ)xP(~BBC) + P(MJ)xP(~BBC) + P(HJ)xP(BBC) + P(MJ)xP(BBC) = 1

Historical Jesus and NOT Big Bang C; P(HJ and ~BBC) = 0.2 x 0.1 = 0.02
The least probable and least popular. Still it is logically possible, if rather bizarre. Imagine a marginal jewish cynic with an in your face social reform agenda who teams up with his Sicarii mates only to run afoul of the authorities and is dispatched forthwith. Thru a diabolical sequence of coincidences his name is remembered by a disparate bunch of proto-Christian sects and…

Mythical Jesus and NOT Big Bang C; P(MJ and ~BBC) = 0.8 x 0.1 = 0.08 :down:
This is the EDT (or something very like it). Despite a generous P(MJ) of 80% it still fails dismally due to the P(~BBC). In fact P(~BBC) would need to be > 60% in order to consider EDT a rational proposition.
No need for PK to send me a copy of TJP, a cheque will be fine. :rolling:

Historical Jesus and Big Bang C; P(HJ and BBC) = 0.2 x 0.9 = 0.18 ~ 0.2
This is the orthodox position of both Theists and non-Theists alike. It would require P(HJ) > 60% to begin to look reasonable. Thus even P(MJ) = 50% would provide a powerful blow for the Mythicist case.

Mythical Jesus and Big Bang C; P(HJ and BBC) = 0.8 x 0.9 = 0.72 ~ 0.7
This case would seem to be an achievable position for the Mythicist cause. Even with RC’s perhaps more reasonable marginal advantage [P(MJ)/P(HJ) ~ 60/40?] it is more than 50% probable.

(B) For dependent events J and B, P(J and B) = P(J) x P(B|J)
That is about as good as it gets.
If you want to estimate P(MJ and ~BBC) = P(MJ) x P(~BBC|MJ), then LOL!!
The likelihood of doing this and gaining any scholarly consensus might well be about the same as the result.


(6) FINALE
As a means of promoting the Mythicist cause (ie. that Jesus is a myth – not how Christianity developed) the reductionist methodology explored above would seem to have a good deal going for it. Nothing in the method precludes arguing successfully for ~BBC. At the end of the day it will depend upon the evidence.

On the other hand, if Mythicists adopt a winner takes all holistic approach requiring that Jesus be Mythical and that Christianity originated from diverse sources, then there is every likelihood that they will fail, thus losing the DMT baby with the EDT bathwater.

PS: I realise that I have stood upon the toes of giants, drawn a longbow and conjured some figures, but basically I stand by the above. In order to divert some of the effluent about to come my way, I shall quietly state that:
1. I have been mulling over BBC/~BBC for almost half a century. I think that I might spend just a little more time upon it.
2. As for HJ/MJ, it seems that I am in some danger of becoming a Mythicist Physicist, and that is not easy to say!

Peter Kirby

Ave Alexander!

I disagree with the "BBC" (Big Bang Christianity) terminology and have stated so before. Not sure what you mean when you use it.

Here I suggest some different terminology.

Supernatural Model--this model includes miracles and the Resurrection of Jesus.

Founder Model--this model includes a Jesus who is recognizably the founder of early Christianity (as seen from AD 100).

Germinal Model--this model includes a Jesus who set things in motion for Christianity to develop (as seen up to AD 100).

Eponymous Model--this model includes a "Jesus" who just lends his name and one dimension of the story to the figure we know in the Gospels. (Think of the loony "Jesus son of Ananias" as a candidate.)

The definitions are the phrases, but if you'd like to think of things in terms of maximum Gospel historicity, where Gospel historicity means that the event or saying traces back to the life of the one we call Jesus:

Supernatural: 100% maximum
Founder: 80% maximum
Germinal: 30% maximum
Eponymous: 5% maximum

Note that the minimums are undefined: for example, a Jesus who does nothing much but the resurrection is still a "Supernatural Jesus."

Note that the last two may be compatible with some Jesus-as-a-fiction ideas.

Anyhow, my question is... "What is Big Bang Christianity without a historical Jesus?" Please describe it.

thanks,
Peter Kirby (neither a myther nor a subscriber to the BBC)

TedM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems to me that the pcts need to be defined in a way that is meaningful, and this the problem. For example, if 80% of the Gospel is historically true (I guess we are excluding the supernatural here), BUT the part about Jesus being crucified isn't, then that makes all the difference in the world as far as determining whether Jesus founded the religion. So does the degree to which Jesus INTENDED on giving his life as a sacrifice. It just seems to me that each potential 'event' must be weighted, and that is a very subjective endeavor. Is there a suggestion here that people will actually agree on the probability data that is input?

ted