Doug Shaver

It was four men in all the versions I've come across.

Whatever. I have a some comments about it on my Web site, in case anyone's interested. http://dougshaver.com/philos/blind_eleph.html

Doug Shaver

OK. Please excuse me while I rephrase my comment.

What you're claiming is that all the evidence supporting the pre-Nicean existence of Christianity is faked.

mountainman

No. That is far too simplistic a representation. Take for example the picture of the sarcophagus lid above, taken from Graydon Snyder's book "Ante Pacem". There is nothing fake about this sarcophagus lid and/or the image that is rendered on it. Graydon Snyder and others appear to be convinced that this image is an early example of "Christian plastic art". I disagree - I dont think it is "Christian" at all. However I certainly dont think this evidence has been faked.

The same applies to the evidence where we are presented with the term "Chrest" and its derivatives, such as POxy (Order to arrest a Chrestian). This evidence has not been faked. It is evidence of the use of the "Chrest" --- it is not evidence for either "Christ" or for "Christians". Do you understand these two examples?

avi

Thank you Doug.

GIGO = garbage in corresponds to garbage out.

Bayes' theorem has nothing to do with computers, though, of course, one can program a computer to perform the computation.

Here is the issue:

Doug acknowledged awareness, i.e. competence, scrutinizing investigations which have employed Bayes' theorem.

We appreciate that.

Doug also indicated his opinion that Carrier was justified in using Bayes' theorem to predict something, (I am not sure what he intends to predict, because, laggard that I am, I still have not read anything by Carrier.....)

So, Doug and I are at odds over this issue, because in my opinion, no one is justified, (i.e. nothing to do with Carrier per se) using Bayes' theorem, in an environment where the source of data used to perform the predictive analysis is obviously flawed.

Perhaps a different example would be instructive to highlight why I am uneasy about Doug's claim of support for Carrier's use of Bayes' theorem to predict, whatever it is that he plans to predict, relying upon ancient Biblical sources to perform the predictive analysis....

Let us consider this simple illustration of how and when Bayes' theorem could be applied, in a real world setting: oil exploration.

A subterranean rock strata contains dolomite "pay zones" versus shale "non-pay" zones. The two rock types emit naturally occuring, distinctive, predictable, gamma radiation of different amounts. Procedure: Drill cores in the field, with the aim of predicting whether or not these samples could serve as useful indicators of petroleum deposits. Measure Gamma radiation from the cores, and then predict, based upon that Gamma radiation, whether or not, the core is dolomite, or shale.

But, what happens to the predictive value of this determination, if someone, for political reasons, alters the actual gamma ray count, to persuade investors, for example, that the core type is Dolomite, not Shale?

Gamma ray distribution by rock type:
...................................Dolomite....... ..Shale
Mean............................25.8.............. .85.2
Standard Deviation..........18.6...............14.9

If gamma ray > 60, then, sample is defined as Shale (no oil, no money). If less than 60, then, the core sample is defined as Dolomite (~= oil, and therefore, money).

In short, Bayes' theorem is useful in performing predictions, based upon interactions involving pure data streams. If the data stream is corrupted, forged, altered, redacted, spurious, or filled with lacunae, the consequent result is meaningless.

Here's a simple question, which I offer to those who support the notion of using Bayes' theorem to perform predictive analysis.

Can we use Bayes' theorem, with confidence, to predict which of the various (circa 13) epistles of Paul are regarded as genuine, which spurious, and which of uncertain authorship?

Posing the question this way, offers a couple of advantages:
a. we already have a reasonably firm consensus, not an absolute, to be sure, but a reasonable agreement, that at least seven of the epistles could be genuine.
b. the epistles are relatively short, shorter than the four gospels....

Can we input the original texts, into a Bayes' model, and derive a mathematical prediction of whether or not, a given letter is "genuine" or not genuine?

Even with such a primitive question, the problems that arise are HUGE. Let's look at an example.

Which text do we submit, as representing Paul's letter to Romans, for example?

Just in the first two chapters, of this single epistle, we find all four kinds of errors, examining the five principal text variants:

..........................Romans 1: chapters 1 and 2 total
inversion of words.........................5
spelling differences........................7
omission of words..........................1
addition of words...........................6

Here, when we write "inversion", or "differences", or "omission" we are referring of course to a standard. But, what should be that standard?

I use Hort and Westcott. So these numbers above, refer to "inversion", for example, with respect to Hort and Westcott.

Someone else my prefer one of the two principal versions of Textus Receptus. Still others prefer the Byzantine text. Many folks insist upon the Alexandrian text. ALL OF THEM ARE DISTINCTIVE.

Which one ought to serve as standard bearer? Can we perform meaningful, predictive, Bayesian analysis with that kind of data?

avi

Doug Shaver

I understand that you claim they are not evidence for pre-Nicean Christianity. Since you say they are not evidence, your opinion of their authenticity is irrelevant to a determination of whether you assert that all evidence for pre-Nicean Christianity is faked.

Doug Shaver

The theorem is a tool for processing data. You feed data into it and get data back out of it. The data you get out can't be any better than the data you put in.

I do not recall, from my reading of Carrier's article, his claiming to be able to predict anything using Bayes' theorem. He proposes using it to assess historical claims. I do not think of historical claims as predictions of any sort.

I believe I said as much in the post to which you are responding.

mountainman

Hi Doug,

These two examples have in the past been claimed to be evidence of the existence of christians. Do you understand the history of such claims, for example that all references to "Chrest" and its derivatives at one time used to be held up as evidence for "Christ" and its derivatives.


But this for the 3rd time is not my assertion. I am not asserting that all the evidence is faked and I have provided two examples of evidence which is not faked or fabricted but genuinely ancient items - papyri and inscriptions for example that mention "Chrest" and not "Christ".

Some of the evidence has been faked, but some of the evidence that in the past has been claimed to be evidence of "Christians" -- evidence that has not been faked, evidence that represents genuine artefacts from antiquity -- has been simply over-enthusiastically claimed and then accepted as evidence in support of christianity. A more critical examination of these claims however, allows the assessment that the original claims are inappropriate, and that because "Chrest" is not the same as "Christ" for example, the "Chrestic evidence" cannot be claimed to be evidence of "Christ".

We are dealing with a mixture of evidence - all CLAIMED to be evidence of "Christians", some of which is authentic and genuine (as presented above) and other evidence which is clearly simply forgery (such as the James Ossuary and the Letters of Paul and Seneca). I have never stated the situation as otherwise, and if I ever have made such a simplistic black and white model in so many words, (ie: all evidence is fraudulent) then I must apologise. The difficult business is actually separating the two categories. I trust this clarifies my positon Doug.

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

What other people have claimed about them is irrelevant to what you are claiming about them. You claim they are not evidence. Therefore, their authenticity has no bearing on what you claim with regard to evidence.

Isn't it? Then tell me of one document or artifact that you will admit (1) is evidence for pre-Nicean Christianity and (2) is authentic.

mountainman

But this is not a true proposition. We have a history of other peoples' claims about the evidence on the table. One example already provided was Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035. If other people are claiming that this represents evidence for pre-Nicean Christianity then I see it as my obligation to offer an explanation as to why these claims are erroneous claims.

I accept that the manuscript is authentic and dated to 256 CE, but my claim is that the original claim (evidence of christians before the 4th century) is wrong because the word "Christian" does not appear on this manuscript.


Authenticity in this case is accepted for a manuscript dated 256 CE, containing some "Chrestian" reference. My claim is that this is not a reference to "Christian".



See above.

I cant find any.

JonA

Mountainman:

The gospels were written well before the fourth century, as were the letters of Paul and the church fathers.

Certainly these speak of the existence of a community (no matter how separated by time or space) of believers sufficient enough to warrant the creation of these documents.

If you are only claiming that Christianity didn't become a single-centered, monolithic religion until the 4th century, then you are still only partially right: at no time, including the present, has Christianity been a single-centered, monolithic religion, not before the 4th century, not during the 4th century, and not after the 4th century.

In any case, I cannot see how your argument amounts to anything other than an intentional distraction.

Jon