Johnny Skeptic

Would it be useful for someone, or some group, to write a computer program about the HJ/MJ issue where numerically weighted values were given to various claims, and where the program could calculate the probability of a historical Jesus?

If writing such a program were possible, surely there would be lots of disputes about the numerically weighted values. Even so, the disputes might reveal a lot of areas of major disagreement, and advance the quality of HJ/MJ debates.

Since I am not a computer expert, I am not able to elaborate about my idea in great detail.

avi

Thank you for this idea, Johnny, I like your creativity.

A couple of problems spring to mind.

First, let's suppose we accomplish what you have in mind, i.e. compute the probability of an historical Jesus of Galilee. Then what? It is a probability, not a fact.

Second, there is a practical issue: the program requires data, and the data must be formatted in a particular fashion. The input we have include ancient manuscripts, written in Greek, with quite a few lacunae. Someone would be obliged to both enter this data, without bias, and create a linked list to other data, which provides "context". This process is going to be messy, politically, with Catholics complaining that we are not using the proper gold tablets (oops, sorry, Mormons), and with Infidels and Muslims and Jews all jumping up and down arguing that the wrong version of the data has been selected for input into the computer data base....

Thirdly, and perhaps, most important, in terms of computer science, the algorithm, which is key to forming the relationships which underscore the probability computation, is going to be devised by a living human, and that person, or group, will never, ever, under any circumstance, meet with approval from the wide variety of religious groups throughout the world.

So, in conclusion, nice idea, but, quite unlikely to yield satisfactory conclusions. Anyway, that's my opinion.

avi

ApostateAbe

I think there is a seed of a good idea in there. Probability values are subjective, but perhaps a probability range (mean and standard deviation) could roughly model the subjectivity of each piece of evidence. For example, maybe the argument that the mention by Paul of "James, the Lord's brother," refers to the sibling of Jesus can be given a probability value of 50%, plus or minus 20%, and the probability can be compounded by the mention of Jesus' brothers including "James" in gMark and gMatthew, and compounded again by the account of Josephus, increasing the probability of the claim by however much. A computer program isn't necessary, except maybe just an Excel spreadsheet. It would be just a long equation with many different variables for input and a single probability output. I am pretty good at Excel, but I need to review my statistics textbook.

Toto

This sounds like Richard Carrier's Bayes’ Theorem.

There is not enough data to require any sort of computer program.

avi

Thank you Abe. I like this illustration, it explains tersely, what took me several paragraphs....hahaha, what ineptitude, huh!!!

How many folks, Abe, just an estimate, disagree with:

a. the probability you have assigned (50%, plus or minus 20%). I for one, completely disagree with that percentage, for I have no idea how you constructed it.... You could be in error by an unknown amount....or, alternatively, you could be "spot" on; one cannot simply pull numbers out of the air, and then run a computer program to proclaim that validity or invalidity of the conclusions drawn from such data....;

b. the idea that "Paul's" document, citing James, is a forgery?

avi

Rick Sumner

This is the fundamental problem with it. No matter how dispassionately the computer processes the data, the weight we give to the data is still subjective, and in the eye of the beholder. Vermes, for example, thinks Aramaisms are integral to the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, and a strong marker of historicity. I think they're comical. Who's right? And how do you tell that objectively.

I'm not sure that the disputes about the numerical weight would be a whole lot different than the disputes we have now. They'd just have numbers assigned to them. I don't see it doing much to forward the discussion.

Didn't someone already try to weigh things with a fistful of colored beads? I think we know how well that worked out so far as establishing any sort of consensus goes.

It's a nice thought. I doubt it would do much to forward the discussion.

aa5874

I think this is a really great idea.

ApostateAbe

The 50% +/- 20% value was completely pulled out of the air as an example. If I were to put more thought into it, I may come up with a better value. The probability value has to be pulled out of the air, so to speak, because all of our pieces of evidence begin with no probability value at all. Every thinker will have a different set of probability values, and the different values can formally illustrate the disagreements. At the least, a consensus can be reached on what the single long equation should be, without values for the variables. If someone wants to include a phrase in the equation about the probability that the epistle to the Galatians is a forgery, then it can be included, with one person giving it a high value, maybe 40%, and everyone else, seeing it as unlikely, would give it a low value, maybe 0.25%, affecting the outcome hardly at all.

youngalexander

Probably what he has in mind. More a case for a programmable calculator or indeed excel as has been suggested.

The calculation is not difficult, coming up with the probalistic data is where it is at - as several respondents have already pointed out.

mountainman

Hi Johnny,

The key element is not the computer program or algorithm but the data. The way I see it is that there are two levels of data which might be used. One domain of data which can be used are all the texts of antiquity. The other domain of data -- related to this -- are all the authors of antiquity.

I have already created a database with the authors of antiquity in order to get a handle on the mass of inventions labelled "Eusebius" in which the authors of antiquity are classified according to whether they are :


P Neo-pythagorean and/or neo-platonic philosophers, historians, authors
C Christian writer, author, apologist (via the Eusebian theory of history)
CB Christian Bishop (via the Eusebian theory of history)
H/W Historian, philosopher, writer (considered "neutral")
RE Roman Emperor (elevated to the purple)

The output when sorted according to the century of the authors estaimated birth looks looks like this LISTING of the Authors of Antiquity by Category

When academics and scholars finally understand that they cannot trust Eusebius at all, they will need to follow an analysis such as the above in order to place an upper bound on the forgeries undertaken in the name of the 4th century State Imperial Cult called "Christianity".