Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

Loren Rosson had liked the fact that Richard Carrier is Jesus Agnostic, and not a Mythicist, when he deals with the only Gospels:

For the most part he doesn’t become victim of his aggressive claims. So for instance, in his assessment of the gospels, he finds nothing at all which can verify Jesus’ existence, but also nothing which proves mythicism. “As evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation.” (p 509) That might be objectionable, but he’s not stacking the deck in his favor as I expected.

https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/2 ... -theories/

I would agree with dr. Carrier in this judgement, if the first gospel was entirely similar, more or less, to our Mark. But the problem is that the Gospel Passion Story shows signs of early and late layers.

The first layer is surely one where only Pilate, and only him, was the killer of Jesus.

A good description of the situation is posed by Bruce Chilton here:

In a paper which he gave to the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1990, Jean Magne developed the most succinct analysis of the passage, but it is based on his finely developed exegetical monographs.! Magne begins with a refutation of the two-source solution of the "Synoptic Problem" in its simplest form. He realizes that the variants among the Synoptic Gospels are too complex to admit of the facile solution of direct borrowing; he asserts his challenge by citing the work of Philippe Rolland. 2 Only attention to the likely antecedents of the Gospels can offer a literary answer to the question of what produced the texts as they can be read today.

Magne sees the overall scene of the session of the Sanhedrin as an expansion of the "primitive text," which he takes to be reflected in two passages which frame the scene of the trial and Peter' s denial (Mark 14:53; 15: 1, in the translation of Magne's rendering):

They led Jesus to the high priest, and the elders and the scribes gathered and, the morning come, they took counsel and, having bound him, they brought him to Pilate.

In referring to the passages as "primitive," Magne intends to say that was as much as was known about how Jesus came to be condemned to death by Pilate. Everything else is embellishment. The literary formation of the text is elegantly set out by Magne. Within the primitive reference to the taking of counsel at the opening and the closing of the present sequence, two interior chiasms are formed, one involving Peter and his denial, the other involving the "trial." The artificiality of the devices is evident to Magne. The evidence brought against Jesus is dangerously close to the truth (see John 2:19; Matt 27:40; Mark 15:29; Acts 6:14), so that the reference to false witness in Mark 14:57-59 is maladroit to say the least.
Moreover, the christological question posed by the High Priest (Mark 14:61) is unrelated to what precedes, and the beating of Jesus and the mocking demand for hirn to prophesy (14:65) seem unmotivated. Finally, the notice of people "taking counsel" (Mark 15: 1) is not the language of any sort of legal proceeding, and actually suggests the accused was not present.

Within Magne' s overall understanding of the development of Christianity, as a popular Gnosis, the creation of the vignette of the trial, with its implicit anti-Judaism, makes good sense. Indeed, Magne is inclined to see a great deal within the Gospels as a pure fabrication on the basis of scriptural texts. So the striking feature of his analysis of Mark 14:53-72 is not that he sees so much elaboration, but that he invokes the hypothesis of the historical memory of Jesus being handed
over to Pilate for execution by High Priest, elders, and scribes. Indeed, Magne has revised his analysis since the work cited above, to posit that even the crucifixion, although primitive from the point of view of the memory of events, was also fabricated. [7]

Note 7 reads, entirely:

I have benefitted from private conversation with him. In that Magne cannot actually cite a text which he alleges inspired a narrative of the crucifixion, his position in this regard is now purely theoretical. His citation of 1 Cor 2:8 shows how the crucifixion was appropriated, but not how reference to it was first generated.

(my bold)

Hence, as also meant by other sources by Magne himself, the original Passion Story was something of similar to this:

So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.

“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Before a story with that final, I think that dr. Carrier is wrong to assume a Pure Agnostic Position.

I observe from note 7 above that, by his own admission, the same Jean Magne was unable to find a text "which he alleges inspired a narrative of the crucifixion".

I believe that I have found that text. But to conclude so, I should read a particular book.

If the reading of the book in question confirms even only indirectly my view (remember that his author is a historicist scholar), then dr. Carrier is definitely not more justified to profession of mere Jesus Agnosticism when he deals with the only Gospel tradition.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:08 am Loren Rosson had liked the fact that Richard Carrier is Jesus Agnostic, and not a Mythicist, when he deals with the only Gospels:

For the most part he doesn’t become victim of his aggressive claims. So for instance, in his assessment of the gospels, he finds nothing at all which can verify Jesus’ existence, but also nothing which proves mythicism. “As evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation.” (p 509) That might be objectionable, but he’s not stacking the deck in his favor as I expected.

https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/2 ... -theories/
I know that Dr Carrier states this -- that the Gospels are as likely under Minimal Historicity as it is under Minimal Mythicism -- but as others have noted, his own writings are against it. As Tim Hendrix pointed out in his review of Carrier's use of Bayes Theory in "On The Historicity of Jesus", Carrier uses the Gospels in determining Jesus's rankings amongst the members of his Rank/Raglan class of early characters conforming to Carrier's version of the Rank/Raglan hero.

Taking the Gospels into account, a priori, the Gospels -- taken on their own -- are 3 times more likely to support a non-historical Jesus than a historical one, according to Carrier. This contradicts Carrier's assertion about the Gospels being as likely under both. (It also makes no sense in terms of Bayes, since the class being used doesn't even map to MH and MM in the first place.)
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:08 amBefore a story with that final, I think that dr. Carrier is wrong to assume a Pure Agnostic Position.
How can Carrier be wrong? You are talking about a new story that Carrier hasn't even evaluated. "If Carrier concluded X based on Y, then he is wrong on Z." Doesn't make sense, Giuseppe.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:37 pmThis contradicts Carrier's assertion about the Gospels being as likely under both. (It also makes no sense in terms of Bayes, since the class being used doesn't even map to MH and MM in the first place.)
you are going to misinterpret deliberately the Carrier's distinction between his approach a priori and his conclusion a posteriori, when he deals with the Gospels.
How can Carrier be wrong? You are talking about a new story that Carrier hasn't even evaluated. "If Carrier concluded X based on Y, then he is wrong on Z." Doesn't make sense, Giuseppe.
no, I am saying that he is wrong to base himself on Y. Please don't misinterpret my view. My judgement about you doesn't change: you are known to defame Carrier in any occasion. It is your only reason to post in my threads.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:02 pmLoren Rosson had liked the fact that Richard Carrier is Jesus Agnostic, and not a Mythicist, when he deals with the only Gospels
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:02 pmyou are going to misinterpret deliberately the Carrier's distinction between his approach a priori and his conclusion a posteriori, when he deals with the Gospels.
Since Bayes Theorem incorporates both a priori and a posteriori in its final calculation, please tell me: According to Dr Carrier's calculations, dealing only with the Gospels, is the result consistent with Carrier being "a Jesus agnostic"?
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:02 pmno, I am saying that he is wrong to base himself on Y. Please don't misinterpret my view. My judgement about you doesn't change: you are known to defame Carrier in any occasion. It is your only reason to post in my threads.
Actually my reason is that, when you are wrong, to see if I can get you to admit you are wrong. One day, maybe :cheers:

According to Dr Carrier's calculations, dealing only with the Gospels, is the result consistent with Carrier being "a Jesus agnostic"? It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:57 pmAccording to Dr Carrier's calculations, dealing only with the Gospels, is the result consistent with Carrier being "a Jesus agnostic"?
yes. I remember that about the Gospels your review of Carrier's book agrees totally with Carrier himself. For example, I have never seen you defend the validity of the Criterion of Embarrassment to justify the historicity of the crucifixion, etc. Hence you and Carrier are one and the same person when you deal with the Gospels.


Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:02 pm Actually my reason is that, when you are wrong, to see if I can get you to admit you are wrong. One day, maybe :cheers:
I note that when I have to talk with you, for me it is immensely easier to argue starting from Carrier's premises. With you it is practically impossible to start even only a discourse about what are the my points and my theses. You are fixed only and forever on the defamation of Carrier, your eternal black beast.
According to Dr Carrier's calculations, dealing only with the Gospels, is the result consistent with Carrier being "a Jesus agnostic"? It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer.
yes. Loren Rosson agrees with me, here. Excuse me if I praise his view more than your view.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:04 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:57 pmAccording to Dr Carrier's calculations, dealing only with the Gospels, is the result consistent with Carrier being "a Jesus agnostic"? It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer.
yes.
Let's go through this, then. Dr Carrier builds the prior probability using his Rank/Raglan scale. He builds his RR class using the Gospels, and only the Gospels. For example:

Jesus scores twenty out of twenty-two, according to Matthew's Gospel (and whether these attributes were original or lately appended to his legend won't matter, as I'll explain in §4 of the next chapter; but note that even in Mark's Gospel, Jesus scores a 14 (Page 232)

From the Gospels, and the Gospels alone, Carrier scores Jesus high enough to be a member of his RR class. This results in a prior probability of 33%:

Therefore, the prior probability [or P(hlb)] that Jesus was historical can be no more than I in 3 or 33% (which translates into prior 'odds' against h of 2 to 1). (Page 252)

Now, note that the prior probability is the probability assigned BEFORE looking at the evidence. Prior probability relates to our experience: based on what we know, what do we expect? As Carrier writes:

This is because a prior probability is the probability we must assign before look­ing at specific evidence for and against each theory. (Page 27)

So, even BEFORE looking at the evidence coming from the Gospels to form his posterior probability, Carrier is not a 'Jesus Agnostic'.

On the Gospels themselves, arguing a fortiori, Carrier concludes it is 1/1:

The Gospels generally afford us no evidence whatever for discerning a historical Jesus... (Page 506)

For now, my conclusion is that we can ascertain nothing in the Gospels that can usefully verity the historicity of Jesus. But neither do they prove he didn't exist. As evidence, they simply make no difference to that equation. (Page 509)

As Carrier notes, Bayes Theorem uses both of the above in the final calculation. Carrier writes:

Bayes's Theorem entails a concluding probability (the probability that Jesus existed) from estimating three other probabilities: ( I ) the prior probability that Jesus existed; (2) the probability of the evidence if Jesus did exist; and (3) the probability of that same evidence if Jesus didn't exist. (Page 596)

So, based on the Gospels alone, Carrier should be concluding that the chances of a HJ as compared to an MJ is: 33% (highest) to 6.25% (lowest). That is both BEFORE and AFTER Carrier has done his evaluation, based on the Gospels.

I've given page references for you to double-check, Giuseppe. Have I made any mistakes? Is there anything I've left out?
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:04 amLoren Rosson agrees with me, here.
Loren Rosson wrote:

"So for instance, in his assessment of the gospels, he finds nothing at all which can verify Jesus’ existence, but also nothing which proves mythicism."

But Carrier's PRIOR probability -- based on his assessment of the Gospels -- has the Gospels providing a weighting from 66.6% up to 93.75!!! towards mythicism. Right?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:34 pm Loren Rosson wrote:

"So for instance, in his assessment of the gospels, he finds nothing at all which can verify Jesus’ existence, but also nothing which proves mythicism."

But Carrier's PRIOR probability -- based on his assessment of the Gospels -- has the Gospels providing a weighting from 66.6% up to 93.75 towards mythicism. Right?
now I understand what is your point: you would like to show Carrier as a mythicist based on the only Gospels.

I think that our divergence is about how one has to be defined, if Jesus Agnostic or Jesus Mythicist, when one claims that there are only 33% of probability for historicity.

Somewhere Carrier wrote publicly to me "hence, agnosticism" just in the context of 33% of probability for historicity. The point is precisely this: I don't bet my house or my life if I had only the 66% of probability of preserving it. The risk of losing it for the 33% of probability is still too much high. "Hence, agnosticism".

At most, you can argue correctly that Carrier is a Jesus Mythicist based on the only Gospels when he thinks that, in the most negative case for historicity, the maximum is 93.75 towards mythicism.


Note that in this thread I am criticizing Carrier from a mythicist point of view: he is too much Jesus Agnostic, in my view, since he assumes Mark's priority and not the greater antiquity of the trial before Pilate.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:51 pmnow I understand what is your point: you would like to show Carrier as a mythicist based on the only Gospels.
Well, no. It is directed at the comment from Rosson that you quoted at the start of your OP:

For the most part he doesn’t become victim of his aggressive claims. So for instance, in his assessment of the gospels, he finds nothing at all which can verify Jesus’ existence, but also nothing which proves mythicism. “As evidence, the gospels simply make no difference to the equation.” (p 509) That might be objectionable, but he’s not stacking the deck in his favor as I expected.

But for Dr Carrier, the Gospels DO make a difference. Prior to even starting his analysis, Carrier has mythicism at odds of between 66% and 93% based on the Gospels.
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:51 pmSomewhere Carrier wrote publicly to me "hence, agnosticism" just in the context of 33% of probability for historicity. The point is precisely this: I don't bet my house or my life if I had only the 66% of probability of preserving it. The risk of losing it for the 33% of probability is still too much high. "Hence, agnosticism".
That's not agnosticism. If your confidence level is between 66% to 93%, that doesn't qualify as "agnosticism". Agnosticism means "without knowledge", i.e. "I don't know". It doesn't mean "I'm not sure".

Thomas Henry Huxley defined it as: "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

The title of this thread is "Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels". He's not 'agnostic' if considering only the Gospels. He believes that, if all we had are the Gospels, those texts which appear to be about a man on earth written within 50 to 80 years after the person supposedly died, and whom was believed to be historical and/or not ahistorical by every early source we have (as far as we can tell), there is a probability of between 66% to 93% that that person didn't exist.
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:51 pmNote that in this thread I am criticizing Carrier from a mythicist point of view: he is too much Jesus Agnostic, in my view, since he assumes Mark's priority and not the greater antiquity of the trial before Pilate.
Right, and I haven't addressed that part. Apologies for dragging you out on a tangent. I'll make this my last post in this thread.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Questioning Richard Carrier's agnosticism based on the only Gospels

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:48 am
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:51 pmSomewhere Carrier wrote publicly to me "hence, agnosticism" just in the context of 33% of probability for historicity. The point is precisely this: I don't bet my house or my life if I had only the 66% of probability of preserving it. The risk of losing it for the 33% of probability is still too much high. "Hence, agnosticism".
That's not agnosticism. If your confidence level is between 66% to 93%, that doesn't qualify as "agnosticism". Agnosticism means "without knowledge", i.e. "I don't know". It doesn't mean "I'm not sure".
When Carrier puts his confidence level on 66%, he is Agnostic, in my view. I would not cross a semaphore red knowing in advance that there is the 33% of probability that a car kills me. To paraphrase your definition of Agnosticism, I would say "I'm not sure that I will survive the crossing of the road". This IS Agnosticism. Is not it?

Sic et simpliciter.
Post Reply