mountainman

The following is the development of the above question:
please contribute to this definition, or explain why it is
as defined below, unworkable.

The term "historicity" frequently appears on various threads.
Roughly it means historical authenticity, and IMO can be viewed
for example as a percentage value, derived from some probabilistic
assessment (to be defined).

If some historical item (author, person, text, coin, statue, architecture,
archeological relic, inscription, grafitti, C14 citation, etc, etc) is considered
to have been absolutely 100% historically authentic then we could
say that the historicity of that item is 100%.

Conversely, if some historical item is considered to have been
absolutely 100% historically inauthentic (eg: a gross forgery)
then we could say that the historicity of that item, with respect
to its purported claims, is 0% (ZERO).

SO we have the boundary conditions defined. Note that we might
wish to start with the proviso that there can be no item for which
the "historicity index" is either 0 or 100. (That is, we cannot know
with absolute certainty that an item is entirely authentic or
entirely inauthentic.)

The next step is to specify the CRITERIA by which the item is to be
assessed and thus to so arrive at this probabilistic assessment
percentage. Elsewhere, I have earlier referred to Richard Carrier's
methodology on this issue, the best example I can find on it at the
moment being the The Rubicon Analogy.

There are five (at least) CRITERIA mentioned here, and the mechanism
by which these 5 criteria can be used to generate a percentage value
needs to be thrashed out. Initially, I'd observe that the more important
contributions of certain criteria may need to be weighted somehow,
and points are allocated according to each criteria, and finally are
totalled to determine a value (between 1 and 99 for example).

I believe this can be done, without too much effort.

DISCLAIMER

Readers must however note that this measure of historicity has no
specific intrinsic worth, per item IMO, but rather a method whereby
a number of items can be compared for their relative historicity.

I am of the opinion that it is not the historicity that is important,
but rather the relative historicities of all the items that are being
used to form any one specific composite picture.

You will notice with Carrier's presentation that the modus operandi
is geared towards a purely COMPARITIVE ASSESSEMENT, or relational
assessment.


QUESTION

So, in theory, do you think that a percentage value of historicity
may be derived against specific authors by a process using a number
of specific and weighted criteria, as outlined?




Pete Brown

mountainman

Richard Carrier seems to utilise the following elements as criteria
by which a gauge of historicity could be obtained ...

Note that in this instance, the items being researched
are people (not a coin, statue, text, etc):


1. Were these people an author of writings?

2. Were they a subject of biographies or hagiographies?

3. Are there inscriptions, coins, statues or other physical archeological
evidence to substantiate their existence?

4. Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant historians?

5. Are they the subject of, or mentioned by extant writers?

The entirely trivial analysis might allocate a maximim of 20 points
to be allocated per question, the total adding to a possible 100.
The natural refinement to this is to allocate some of these question
more weight, for example the first criteria might be worth 30 points,
and the others the balance.

There may in fact be other criteria to be included, and weighted.
Anyway, this is the abbreviated list of the integral component
elements or criteria by which a value might be somehow
calculated.

gstafleu

OK, so you have an item, plus a number of attributes. Some of these attributes are historical, others are not. If none are historical you have a 0% item, if all are historical you have an 100% item. So far so good. But what if 5 of your 10 items are historical and 5 are not? Does that mean a 50% item?

I doubt it is that easy, it is unlikely that all items have the same weight. Plus you can, in ugly duckling fashion, always phrase your attributes such that you can reach any arbitrary degree of historicity, given a greater than 0% starting point, I suspect. So you need something about relevance and independence in there.

All in all I suspect you're better off with just the list.

Gerard Stafleu

mountainman

Yes it does. The historicity index would be 50%
in accordance to the algorithm/criteria used.

What I am aiming for is one criteria which can be equally and fairly
applied to many and in fact all "purportedly historical" figure by
which (what is effectively) a relative historicity is
obtainable.

You point out (pragmatically) that one person could come up
with an entirely different set of weightings for the given criteria.
That is their perogative, but that same person must then use
those same criteria to generate a comparitive historicity for
a given standard sample of other "purported historical figures".

My intention is to:

1) state the list of the criteria, to exclusion so we are happy
that we dont have to add other criteria. But perhaps, for example,
the presence of miracles is itself a criteria. If so, then let it be so,
but it must be so for all "purported historical figures".

2) Derive a series of standard weightings that different parties
will attempt to attach to the criteria so as to make the result
either more or less according to their agenda, whatever that
may happen to be, at present we dont care. FOr the sake of
the exercise, in general terms, these can be known simply as
"the set of algorithms of historicity".

3) Derive a standard set of "purported historical figures" that
might include the following:

* Pythagoras
* Buddha
* Lao Tsu
* Confucious
* Alexander the Great
* Philo of Alexandria
* Apollonius of Tyana
* Jesus
* Flavius Josephus
* Clement of Alexandria
* Hegesippus
* Paul
* Eusebius of Caesarea
* Constantine
* Julian
* Cyril of Alexandria

4) Run the variously engineered "sets of algorithms of
historicity" against the above (sample) list of figures.

5) Analyse the results.


Thus my comments that this historicity will ever only yield a relative
significance, and needs to be always therefore treated only in the
relative sense, never in the absolute sense.

Consequently, when your algorithm generates a total of 40% for
one specific person, and 80% for another, you can be sure only
that --- according to your algorithm --- the latter person is twice
as likely to be "historically authentic".

This methodology should be seriously examined for those who see
themselves interested in the MJ debate, because it has the process
by which it may be shown - according to any given series of criteria -
just how far down the relative results list Jesus actually sits, in
a relative sense to history itself.

Has this clarified anything?

Best wishes,


Pete

Peter Kirby

Not having read you too closely (disclaimer), this seems to violate Aristotle's dictum, "for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits" (Nicomachean Ethics, 1.3)

--
Peter Kirby

mountainman

This tells me nothing, other than the fact that you may
not have read what I wrote too closely. Do you think
you could be a little more specific, particularly in
reference to any perceived Aristotlean violations.



Pete

Peter Kirby

Is putting a percentage to it asking for more precision than allowed by the subject and its materials?

--
Peter Kirby

mountainman

No, I dont think it needs to be seen in this way at all.
Putting a percentage on it essentially permits some form
of quantitative assessment to be performed, a numeric
result obtained via a pre-defined invented refinable algorithm.

I am not claiming that this numeric result has any absolute
value, but rather that it permits an objective assessment
of the consistency and integrity of the algorithm
as applied across a genuinely broad sample of "purported
historical figures".

It will enable us to answer these questions:

1) How does the historicity index of Jesus vary in accordance to
the use of specific criteria and their weightings.

2) What historicity indexes will these same specific criteria
and their weightings generate in respect of a sample list
of typical "purported historical figures" (above).

3) Where does Jesus appear on these lists?

4) Where does Alexander the Great appear?

5) Which figures are genereally considered thrice as authentic
as other figures, according to the various sets of algorithms?


My point is that the question of historicity may only ever
be answered in a relative sense: eg: X is thrice as likely to be
historically authentic than Y (given the criteria 1,2,3,4 and
in addition their "track record" against the sample people)




Pete

aa5874

Your OP basically describes 'probability' of existence. There is no need to prescribed a percentage value to historicity. If historicity cannot be confirmed, then probabilty of existence is a judgement call by the researcher, after taking into account all data complied.

For example, the NT mentions Herod the Great a few times, however the probabilty that Herod the Great existed as compared to Jesus Christ is far greater, although the entire NT is about Jesus Christ. Sometimes the more information you receieve about a character the more it diminishes the probabilty of existence.

Let's take Noah in Genesis. Noah's historicity will not be able to be confirmed, but the probabilty of his existence is virtually zero, this assesment is due to the claim he lived to be 950 years old, he built a boat to hold at least a pair of all the animals in the world and that some God told him to build it, all consistent with fiction.

Without any direct evidence of historicity, all information, whether it appears insignificant or not, is useful in determining the probabilty of existence.

mountainman

You seem to be defining the term "historicity" by some black and
while absolutist regime in which something can only ever be considered
to be historical or not. The term historicity means not just the history,
but a measure of the authenticity of the history --- its integrity.

Historicity is *the same thing as* the probability of existence IMO.
Thus your statement needs to take this into account.

Correct! The historicity (as defined above, the same thing as what
you are calling probability of [historical] existence) of Herod the Great
by certain criteria may indeed turn out greater than JC.

Noah's index of historicity, yes, according to those criteria
would yield a numeric percentage close to zero.

IMO the term historicity is the probability of historical existence,
or the measure of its historical authenticity, obviously in accordance
to a series of criteria, as outlined above.



Pete