J-D

Here's an another hypothetical example for you, just to show the kind of thing Bayes' theorem can be used for.

Let's say we start off with a background probability of 3% that a randomly selected FRDB poster is a buffoon. Let's say also that we have a background probability of 20% that a randomly selected FRDB post is rubbish, but if we also have the additional information that if the poster is a buffoon then the probability that the post is rubbish is 80%, then we can apply Bayes' theorem. In this case, the result of the calculation is that if a randomly selected post is rubbish, we should revise our figure for the probability that the poster is a buffoon up to 12% (that's 3% multiplied by 80% divided by 20%).

That's an example of how you can use Bayes' theorem to revise a figure for the probability of something in the light of additional evidence. For example, if you already have a background figure for the probability that a document is a forgery and you want to revise that in the light of additional information about the characteristics of the document, then you can use Bayes' theorem to do so if (and only if) you have a background figure for the probability of finding those additional characteristics in any document of the general type (forged or not) and a figure for the probability of finding those characteristics in a forged document. More specifically, if you have a figure for the percentage of all documents that are in red ink, and a figure for the percentage of forged documents that are in red ink, you can use Bayes' theorem to adjust your previously established figure for the probability that a document is forged when you discover the additional information that it's in red ink.

andrewcriddle

Feldman's article is available in new+perspectives+on+jewish+christian+relations

(I may possibly comment on it later.)

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Feldman states (p.26) that:

Now this seems really rather impressive (to me, anyway). But we must always verify our facts.

I have just performed a TLG simple textual search myself, on "EIS ETI TE NUN", and it does indeed give 4 results:

1. Josephus, in the TF.
2. Eusebius, Church History book 1, chapter 11, verse 8, here; in, ahem, Eusebius' quotation of the TF.
3. Eusebius, Church History, book 2, chapter 1, verse 7 here: "7 When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching. **And from that time down to the present** the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of Christ, offering no common proof of the beneficence of our Saviour toward them also."
4. Eusebius, Eclogae Propheticae, p.168 l.15 (no published English translation exists): "Διὸ καὶ τότε θαυμάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς εἰκὸς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἔμφροσιν, καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἀναγράπτους παρὰ τοῖς ἱερογραμματεῦσι φυλάττεσθαι, εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν παρ’ ὅλῳ τῷ ἔθνει προφήτας γεγονέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύεσθαι·" (Anyone care to give us a translation?)

It's fairly obvious why #2 contains these exact words - it's a quotation. It is no argument against Eusebius that #3 does so, since Eusebius has the phrase in his mind from book 1.

It is interesting that the quotation of the TF in the Demonstratio Evangelica does not appear in this search; and that no subsequent quotation of the TF with the words appears either. This last bit suggests to me that that the TLG search is not doing quite what Feldman supposes.

I likewise wonder whether this method has been adequately tested for producing false positives. What other phrases might give "interesting" results.

In view of the paucity of data, there seems no obvious reason to suppose anything except that Eusebius came across the phrase in the TF and liked it enough to use it -- in the vast volume of his works -- a total of twice more. But that nobody else in Greece ever used it... um... I mistrust this claim deeply.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

UPDATE: The text of the last sentence of the TF in the version given by the DE is "ὅθεν εἰσέτι νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦδε τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐκ ἐπέλειπεν τὸ φῦλον." This, of course, phrases the same idea differently.

It occurs to me that we are forgetting, in all this, that Eusebius' Church History was a very common text, while Josephus was a rare one. Jerome quotes the TF in Latin in a slightly different form (in De viris illustribus); but I believe that the Greek translation of Jerome "corrects" his quotation to agree with the one in Josephus Ant / Eusebius HE. This demonstrates that the TF text was prone to normalisation in transmission, even in quotation; which means that we cannot be certain that the TF in Josephus as we now have it is not "corrected" from Eusebius HE. That the DE version differs suggests that Josephus text at this point may not be recoverable to the degree that Feldman's test requires. If Eusebius was quoting from memory in both cases, and doing so differently, and the text of Josephus has been normalised against it, then Eusebian phrasing may be a natural product of the transmission.

UPDATE: I did a search on the opening words of the DE version (OQEN EISETI NUN) and got ... only the DE in all Greek literature has these precise words. Really?

I then did a search for the first two words: OQEN EISETI, and got 5 hits:

1. The DE
2. The DE, book 5, chapter 9, verse 7: ὅθεν εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν (i.e. the DE text with "and" shoved in the middle)
3. John Damascene on images, same as #2.
4. Scholia on Aristophanes, same four words as #2.
5. Scholia on Aristophanes again, same four words as #2.

I then did a search for EIS ETI TE; same results as top, but an extra match (also on Eusebius, on the long version of the Martyrs of Palestine), but nothing else.

Hmm.

mountainman

Scientists can clock on at 9:00 am and work a 9 hour day and then clock off and in that period of time generate more data that you and I could poke a stick at in 9 lifetimes. Historians do not have that luxury. Every few years another new data item may be discovered from the period in antiquity we are discussing.

We have the data already. It is not going to change all that much. It is our attitude to the data that actually changes. This attitude is isomorphic to the hypotheses we allow ourselves to create and maintain, to test and retest, with respect to the available data evidence.

The absence of evidence can be used to develop a hypothesis.

In fact a hypothesis may be developed in the absence of evidence IFF (if and only if) it does not conflict with any known evidence.

J-D

Why do you want to develop a new hypothesis?

mountainman

Eusebius oversighted the production of Bible codices for Constantine and moonlighted writing history and martyrologies. Athanasius oversighted the production of Bible codices for Constantius and moonlighted writing hagiography and "Against Arius". Then along came Julian.

Julian's "Against the Galilaeans" was a real problem for the Nicaean Church.

Someone had to censor it.

That's what the source we call "Cyril" did.



Cyril publically censored Julian's convictions that the fabrication of the Christians was a fiction of (unNAMED) men which was composed by wickedness. The source we call "Cyril" took up the task of refuting the LIES of the Emperor Julian.

DOCTOR Cyril's major title in the church was "The Seal of the Fathers". (Think of a concrete slab being poured over the evidence)

Before Cyril's time the "Fathers of the Church" were invariably the 318 Nicaean Fathers who attended Constantine's 20th Year Long Service Party. After Cyril's time the "Fathers of the Church" were invariably Eusebian identities from the deep pre-Nicaean epoch.

The forgery mill continues to this day.

IMO Pseudo-Isidore was sired by Pseudo-Eusebius.

mountainman

Could you give the URL for the TLG simple textual search?

Do you need to subscribe?

Thanks.

mountainman

Thanks Andrew, and to Roger for that quote.

I managed to read part of his conclusion and ran across this:

I was struck with Feldman's final question.

The Quranic complilers would certainly have taken such liberties.

What do we know of Agapius's attitude towards Islam? Duvduv?

Agapius of Hierapolis

Toto

Ken Humphreys on Agapius

mountainman

Curiousity.


The old ones don't seem to work too well (at least for me).