Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[maryhelena]

For the ones interrested,
I have now a series of blog_posts/critiques on passages of Carrier's "On The Historicity Of Jesus" right here, at the click of a mouse:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... er_OHJ.htm
Enjoy!

Cordially, Bernard

Interesting, Carrier using the Josephan Jesus ben Ananias story re gMark's Jesus passion story. Parallels.......I might copy Carrier's chart later....

I've not got this far in my reading of Carrier's book so your blog post has motivated me to get back to it. (been away from home most of the last couple of weeks).

Carrier's wild theory: Jesus ben Ananias as the model for Jesus of Nazareth's Passover narrative:

page 428/429 "Indeed, even how Mark decides to construct the sequence of the Passo­ver narrative appears to be based on the tale of another Jesus: Jesus ben Ananias, the 'Jesus of Jerusalem', an insane prophet active in the 60s ce who is then killed in the siege of Jerusalem (roughly in the year 70). His story is told by Josephus in the Jewish War, and unless Josephus invented him, his narrative must have been famous, famous enough for Josephus to know of it, and thus famous enough for Mark to know of it, too, and make use of it to model the tale of his own Jesus. Or if Josephus invented the tale, then Mark evidently used Josephus as a source. Because the parallels are too numerous to be at all probable as a coincidence. Some Mark does derive from elsewhere (or matches from elsewhere to a double purpose), but the overall scheme of the story in Josephus matches Mark too closely to believe that Mark just came up with the exact same scheme indepen­dently. And since it's not believable that Josephus invented a new story using Mark, we must conclude Mark invented his story using Josephus—or the same tale known to Josephus.

It would appear this story inspired the general outline of Mark's entire Passover Narrative. There are at least twenty significant parallels (and one reversal):

http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... 1-p103.htm

Josephus might have invented Jesus ben Ananias??? My my......perhaps Carrier should dig a little more into Josephus...

Interesting - a Josephan account of Jesus ben Ananias, dated 70 c.e., can be, re Carrier, used for a gospel story set 40 years prior (around 30 c.e. re gLuke). Well then, if that is deemed to be OK - then, methinks Carrier can hardly have objections about an execution of a King of the Jews, dated 37 b.c.e. used as a model, parallel, for the gospel passion story set years after that event. At least one would not be dealing with a possible Josephan Jesus ben Ananias invention......

[Stephan Huller]

OK - then, methinks Carrier can hardly have objections about an execution of a King of the Jews, dated 37 b.c.e. used as a model, parallel, for the gospel passion story set years after that event. At least one would not be dealing with a possible Josephan Jesus ben Ananias invention

Yeah that follows

Rather than sitting on the sidelines as you make relentless efforts to draw anyone who will listen into your little web of self-created nonsense, your abortive intellectual growth that you bandy around as a 'plausible theory for Christian origins' I will have to answer your latest propagandist effort (as much as I don't want to because it by nature stains me with your abortive slime).

Why does it follow that if Carrier suggests that Mark used Josephus as a source (something that I don't believe) that THEREFORE he should yield to your stupid theory? What's the logic here? 'Fight fire with fire' or maybe 'one more for the road'?

And please remember I don't object - I couldn't object to people coming up with stupid unworkable theories. I've done this many times and will continue to do so. But above all else, I hate pimps, intellectual or otherwise, who stand on the street corner and solicit their stupid ideas no matter how obviously unworkable they are.

It is hardly likely - or at least YOU HAVEN'T DONE SUFFICIENT WORK to demonstrate that it is reasonable to conclude - that a gospel supposedly set during the reign of Pilate is 'really about' someone or something set 'before the Common Era.' But leaving that aside for a moment, why should Carrier yield to this unreasonable half-baked theory because he has come up with a bad argument himself? The fact that Carrier or any other scholar is capable of the same unjustifiable leaps of logic doesn't take away from the fact you have come up with a stupid theory. But the fact that you persist in relentlessly promote this idea is what really condemns you.

There is no logical reason to conclude that Mark in writing a story about Jesus in a particular era intended anything other than a story about Jesus in a particular era. The fact that Pilate is mentioned and 'the time of Pilate' is repeatedly emphasized as an important doctrinal point means that the story of Jesus 'really happened' or was thought to really happen during Pilate's time in Judea ... unless you come up with reasonable arguments to weaken that understanding, and you haven't.

[MrMacSon]

.
There is no logical reason to conclude that Mark in writing a story about Jesus in a particular era intended anything other than a story about Jesus in a particular era.

Which literally begs the question - why was the story written.

.
The fact that Pilate is mentioned and 'the time of Pilate' is repeatedly emphasized as an important doctrinal point means that the story of Jesus 'really happened' or was thought to really happen during Pilate's time in Judea ... unless you come up with reasonable arguments to weaken that understanding, and you haven't.

That's a false dichotomy - it could have been written to include Pilate to give it plausibility

[Stephan Huller]

Yes 'it could have.' 'It could have' involved time travel. Anything is possible. But surely there are more likely possibilities? Maryhelena has stopped evaluating alternative possibilities a long time ago. Instead she looks for opportunities to propagandize. Her mind is made up and all she does is look for openings to stick that stupid theories of hers into discussions and that's not cool because it is at bottom very, very, very unlikely that the gospel was written in 70 CE ostensibly about an event during the tenure of Pilate but really about Antigonus in 37 BCE. This is so stupid and convoluted and unlikely it only makes any real impact here when someone lazy and stupid like me calls her out for her determined and willful stupidity.

[MrMacSon]

.
Yes 'it could have.' 'It could have' involved time travel. Anything is possible. But surely there are more likely possibilities?

Sure. I was just thinking we should have a summary list of the reasonable possibilities and their likelihoods/probabilities (I don't think time-travel is one of them)

.
... it is at bottom very, very, very unlikely that the gospel was written in 70 CE ostensibly about an event during the tenure of Pilate but really about Antigonus in 37 BCE.

As you said anything is possible - if the Jesus of the NT-gospel/s is a composite, any number of events could have contributed - a bit of Antigonus, a bit of Jesus ben Ananias.

It/They could have been started before 70 CE, added to around 70 CE or slightly later, and further redacted later.

[neilgodfrey]

MrMacSon has expressed a wish to see Ehrman take Carrier's approach to the evidence for his Jesus. I am surprised he has not adopted Carrier's approach to this theory, too.

Again, we have Carrier's Bayes Calculator at http://www.richardcarrier.info/bayescalculator.html to make it very simple.

And again, let's be ridiculously generous to the odds for the Antigonus theory to give it the best possible leg up.

Let's estimate our prior. To do this let's most generously assume that, given all we know about ancient writings, one in three narratives from ancient times set in one period was really a disguise for a much earlier story.

So P(H∣b) = 0.3.

Now for the consequent. Let's ask how likely each and every one of the narrative details we identify in the gospels is exactly as we what we would expect on the Antigonus theory. Let's again be very generous and say we can be 80% confident that every detail in the gospels is predicted by the Antigonus theory.

So P(E∣H.b) = 0.8

But let's be very mean to the other side of the debate and insist that we can only be 70% confident that all of the evidence in the gospel narratives is predictable on any other hypothesis apart from the Antigonus one.

So P(E∣-H.b) = 0.7

So even being absurdly generous to the Antigonus theory and absurdly mean to any other theory the best odds Carrier's method can deduce for the Antigonus hypothesis comes to 0.32.

P(H∣E.b) = 0.3

Now what would the result be if we used more reasonable figures!

[MrMacSon]

MrMacSon has expressed a wish to see Ehrman take Carrier's approach to the evidence for his Jesus. I am surprised he has not adopted Carrier's approach to this theory, too.

I was more after Erhman to first comment on Carrier's approach and acknowledge there are a number of possibilities, each with different probabilities; rather than assert as Ehrman essentially does.

But it would be good if Ehrman were to engage deeper than he seems to have recently.

[neilgodfrey]

MrMacSon has expressed a wish to see Ehrman take Carrier's approach to the evidence for his Jesus. I am surprised he has not adopted Carrier's approach to this theory, too.

I was more after Erhman to first comment on Carrier's approach and acknowledge there are a number of possibilities, each with different probabilities; rather than assert as Ehrman essentially does.

But it would be good if Ehrman were to engage deeper than he seems to have recently.

Is this an attempt to wheedle out of applying Carrier's approach to your own pet theories? You know (or should) that Carrier's entire argument is that proper reasoning can be represented in the Bayes equation as shown above. Accept it!

[neilgodfrey]

What Carrier's method comes down to is the assurance that alternative arguments are also given due weight and consideration alongside your own theory. The equation ensures you don't forget to take proper and due account of alternative explanations when you are evangelizing your own. This is why the Caesar = Jesus, the Antigonus, and the astrotheology of Robert Tulip -- all of them so convince their devotees but not others: devotees only look at their own arguments and forget to evaluate the alternatives.

That's what Ehrman should be doing more thoroughly according to Carrier's method. You don't need the maths to do it. The maths just helps remind you to be sure you are honestly giving at least some reasonable attention to the alternatives and making a proper, balanced assessment.

[MrMacSon]

.
Is this an attempt to wheedle out of applying Carrier's approach to your own pet theories?

No. I need to better understand Bayes' Theorem & Carrier's approach & use of it rather than play with it superficially (& thus meaninglessly)

What Carrier's method comes down to is the assurance that alternative arguments are also given due weight and consideration alongside your own theory. The equation ensures you don't forget to take proper and due account of alternative explanations when you are evangelizing your own.

Sure, but your next sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur with respect to the application of Baye's; especially at the moment when it's application to this is relatively new.

This is why the Caesar = Jesus, the Antigonus, and the astrotheology of Robert Tulip -- all of them so convince their devotees but not others: devotees only look at their own arguments and forget to evaluate the alternatives.

Speculating or theorizing doesn't have to initially or primarily take in to account other theories.


I agree with this -

The maths just helps remind you to be sure you are honestly giving at least some reasonable attention to the alternatives and making a proper, balanced assessment.

The math helps quantify and therefore, to a certain extent, to qualify.