do you have anything more about this? any written articles?

Which thing? Be specific.

how is it that they are able to turn crowds against jc in 2 days and no one cares?

In fiction, anything can happen.

(You weren’t seriously thinking this actually happened?)

is it true that all that was required was 2 witnesses and jc would have been a free man?

I’m not sure what you mean. Like any trial, the Sanhedrin decides, and not necessarily according to any principles of justice. Juries often don’t do the right thing, or follow the law. Then, even more so than now. So one can’t assume anything like that.

But regarding the technicalities of Mishnah law, yes, if the prosecution has the requisite two witnesses (to outnumber the self-testimony of the accused by one), which the Gospels claimed they didn’t (because they couldn’t get their stories straight), but assuming they did, the defense would normally need two more witnesses (so as to outnumber the prosecution by one, since two witnesses plus the accused makes three). “Technically” that would warrant acquittal all else being equal. But the Devil is in the details. All is often not equal. A jury (the Sanhedrin) could decide (fairly or not) that the defense witnesses are lying or unreliable, while concluding (fairly or not) that the prosecution witnesses were honest and reliable, and thus decide the prosecution has won its case, not the other way around. That was entirely allowed under Jewish law (jurists were not required to believe a witness).

To add to the complications, “if” any of the events thus depicted are true (I am fairly certain they are not, but let’s suppose), then witnesses for the defense might have been intimidated into not appearing, as they would be at risk of being seized and tried as co-conspirators.

you wrote:

Indeed, if we are to suppose a riot would have ensued at that action, it would have ensued the moment he was crucified…yet somehow, suddenly, the Jewish authorities stop being concerned about deadly skirmishes, when they do something enormously worse than merely arrest him, but actually murder him in a public and humiliating manner, and most offensively, on (or on the dawn of) a high holy day. So we’re supposed to believe riots would ensue at his mere arrest that didn’t ensue at his outrageous public murder? If we’re going to play the game of “read the Gospels literally,” the story just ends up making less sense, not more.

If you want a more historically plausible account of how the Jewish elite would have actually handled the Jesus problem, look at how we’re told they planned to handle the Paul problem (Acts 23:12-21). More likely, they would have killed him immediately upon his vandalism of the temple square, which was guarded by six hundred armed soldiers (with thousands more to summon just a javelin’s throw away in Fort Antonia, which housed a whole Roman legion, adjacent to the Temple: Josephus, Jewish War 2.12.1, 4.5.1, 5.238-248; Jewish Antiquities 20.8.6, 20.8.11), who were not afraid to beat down any rebellious public who got in their way (most especially trouble-makers in the Temple).

rob: do you have anything more about this? any written articles? how is it that they are able to turn crowds against jc in 2 days and no one cares? is it true that all that was required was 2 witnesses and jc would have been a free man?

Great comment. It’s an important discussion to have in terms of layperson epistemology. Should happen more often and experts should be more sensitive to it. Difficult terrain that I think about often enough.

Indeed, it’s weirder, because journalists expose flaws in science and pseudoscience all the time. That’s in fact what journalists do. They do it by also relying on other experts (scientists), of course, but that is exactly what Watson does. And golly, what do you know, Watson has a degree in communications. In other words, what she actually does.

Does Shermer have a Ph.D. in economics? astronomy? pharmacology? neurophysics? religious studies? Oh, no wait, he just has a Ph.D. in history, and a masters in experimental psychology, yet he debunks people in all manner of other fields and no one bitches about that (…because, penis?).

There is a critique of using Bayes in historical reasoning that I suspect is valid and that is that we probably don’t have sufficiently good data to actually apply it meaningfully to many questions we might be interested in. That is not a problem if the conclusion the historian arrives at is ‘we don’t know’ but it is likely to be a very big problem if the approach is used by people who are not willing to admit to such an outcome.

Indeed, which is just what I say and address, in detail, in Proving History. In fact, BT thus proves what historians can’t know, or can’t know with the certainty they desire, and thus ends subjective intuitive disagreements about what can or can’t be known (except for people who refuse to be logical, but they would do that whether BT was involved or not).

It’s folly, I think, to focus so much on BT being “math,” though. What it is is logic. It’s a logical syllogism. It just so happens that it is the only logical syllogism that correctly derives conclusions (as in, with logical validity) from sound premises in history. Because standard Aristotelian syllogisms, for example, are either invalid (the conclusion fails to follow from the premises, due to the fallacy of diminishing probabilities) or unsound (stating premises as certainly true or false, rather than true to some non-absolute probability, is simply not defensible when no premises about history are certainly true or false).

So what historians have to do is admit all their premises are only known to varying degrees of probability, and admit to wide margins of error in estimating just what those probabilities are. Then a BT analysis can proceed. And indeed, if they didn’t know to use BT, they might never get around to actually admitting that their premises have a probability of being false and asking just how they know those probabilities are small, or small enough to get the conclusions they want.

In other words, avoiding BT lets historians avoid the actual questions they should be asking…including the most important question of all: why their conclusions are even logically valid in the first place.

The YouTube video of Rebecca Watson’s takedown of Evolutionary Psychology is filled with people attacking RW for not having scientific credentials. So having a degree in experimental science I said, OK then I have a degree in nuclear physics, if you won’t debate RW for not being a scientist then argue your case against me. After many slippery evasions and attacking me for ‘flaunting’ the credentials they assert are essential to debate the issue they eventually admit that they are unqualified.

I couldn’t really be bothered with the article either as too much of the text is taken up by unsupported assertions.

There is a critique of using Bayes in historical reasoning that I suspect is valid and that is that we probably don’t have sufficiently good data to actually apply it meaningfully to many questions we might be interested in. That is not a problem if the conclusion the historian arrives at is ‘we don’t know’ but it is likely to be a very big problem if the approach is used by people who are not willing to admit to such an outcome.

Having written much of my doctoral thesis on the then fashionable topic of Formal Methods, applying a rigorous mathematical approach to the design of computer programs I am now rather skeptical of placing too much faith in the utility of mathematical models. It is entirely possible for the program to be proven completely correct yet be completely wrong to all practical purposes. I once met a grad student of Robert Nozick at Harvard who was trying to build a logical positivist foundation of Zen Budhism. The idea that there might be questions that mathematics can’t solve appeared to give him a major shock.

Using Bayes to demonstrate that the gospels are implausible as a historical account seems to be a valid approach. If we can’t make sense of Jesus as history it seems more reasonable to assume that he is mythical.

Then there’s the contradictory logic. The truth of historicism is so pervasive, so obvious, so utterly inescapable that anyone who is not convinced belongs with the Flat Earthers, the YEC’s, and the Holocaust deniers. To hear the historicists of this camp (e.g. McGrath) tell it, one might be excused in thinking that they must have video of the Sermon on the Mount, or at least perfectly-preserved fossil Jesus-prints along the Via Dolorosa. Yet, according to Ms. Fisher, the case for historicism is so technical and arcane that only the very creme de la creme of New Testament academia, renowned scholars representing top-tier universities are qualified to discuss it intelligently. One is left to wonder how Grad Student Stephanie came to be initiated into the ranks of such august company. Perhaps we shall one day learn that at the tender age of twelve, she lectured the priests and scribes of the scholarly Temple in the subtle nuances of gMark’s Aramaic, astounding one and all with her great wisdom and erudition. Truly she must be the Mozart, nay, the Wesley Crusher of New Testament scholarship!

Now, doesn’t it have to be one or the other? We heap scorn upon YEC’s, Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers precisely because the evidence against their claims is is of a nature that any layperson with a modicum of intelligence and curiosity can be expected to understand it. I do not have to be a world-famous biologist, geologist, or astrophysicist from a “top-tier” university to be able to understand why evolution is superior to the Noah’s Ark “theory.” McGrath and those who follow his path just love to clobber mythicists with the “Flat Earth/YEC/Holocaust denier” brickbat at every opportunity. Their other great weapon is the putative “consensus of mainstream scholars.”

Once people like you pick that “consensus” apart a bit (by citing mainstream scholars who question the ‘criteria’ methodology and/or various pillars of the historicist case even as historicists), then we get Ms. Fisher’s argument: that the much-vaunted “consensus” is irrelevant since most scholars are either hacks and crackpots (Mack) or unqualified to discuss the issue because they aren’t fluent in Aramaic, with awe-inspiring credentials from “top-tier” universities, etc.. So now it’s not “all the scholars except a few self-published crackpots are historicists,” it’s “the Chosen Few, the Inner Circle of Adepts are historicists because they alone are uniquely qualified to fathom the Mysteries, and everyone else should GTFO.” It seems to me (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that if Ms. Fisher is correct, then laypersons like myself have legitimate epistemic warrant to accept mythicism. If mythicist scholars can make a case we can understand and which is consistent with the best estimates of probability we can make, we should be mythicists even if the HistorIlluminati are right.

Since their evidence is something no one can comprehend without becoming one of them (necessarily requiring dedicating one’s life to the study required to earn the “top-tier” qualifications), anyone not of the Circle must take their assertions on faith. Without the lofty qualifications she requires of everyone but herself, we can’t even assess whether a particular scholar is truly a member of the Circle or not. How can we judge their qualifications? Heck, as often as I’ve seen Mack cited as an authority in my own readings on the NT, I thought he was a Real, True Scholar until Grad Student Stephanie (whom I have never seen cited) set me straight on that matter. *rolleyes*

On the other hand, if a mythicist like you or Doherty or Price can make reasoned arguments and offer evidence that we can understand, then we have the option of adopting your views based on reason, evidence, and our own application of Bayes’ Theorem. Even if the Circle of Adepts is correct and mythicism is false, we are still employing better epistemology if we accept your arguments and evidence in favor of mythicism, because the evidence for historicism is beyond our ken.

Analogy: let’s say that Stephen Hawking published a brilliant paper on string theory which used utterly sublime mathematics to prove it–but the maths are so incredibly complex and advanced that only five other people in the world can comprehend them well enough to analyze the paper. Those five people may join Hawking in accepting string theory as a proven fact, but everyone else can only take their word for it, or withhold acceptance. Now let’s say that some other physicist who’s a bit of a maverick and not one of the Six “top-tier” physicists–we’ll call him ‘Lee Smolin’ for the purposes of discussion–says the great paper is bollocks, and promotes his own theory. Smolin’s theory can be explained in terms that a layperson can understand, and at least some of the evidence he marshals in its favor is comprehensible to them. Even if the Six can correctly say that Smolin does not truly understand their equations and his theory is incorrect because, equations only the Six can understand, wouldn’t laypersons still be justified (i.e. not YEC crackpots, Flat Earthers, etc.) in accepting Smolin’s theory because: A) they aren’t really qualified to judge the CV-Waving Contest between Smolin and the Six; B) The Six are much more qualified in physics than they are, but so is Smolin; C) Smolin’s theory makes more sense within the context of the information that the laypersons can understand?

In like manner, if one has to be able to read gMark in the original Aramaic, 😉 know how to identify which substratum of Q each verse belongs to as one reads, while also knowing how each verse relates to the contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls and possess a comprehensive understanding of Second Temple Judaism and the history of the era in detail, before one can see just how impressive and compelling is the evidence for the historical Jesus, would a layperson have any business accepting Jesus historicism? Especially if mythicist evidences like Doherty’s “Great Silence” and the chiasmic structure of the Gospels (your speeches on that subject) are within the grasp of a curious layperson? Doesn’t that make mythicism the more rational model for a layperson to accept, simply because we have the option of accepting arguments and evidence instead of just taking the Circle of Adepts’ word for it?

Thank you for your insight Thaumas.

Also, for quick calcs, I have an online script calculator for running Bayesian calculations (not a spreadsheet, though, which can be quite powerful for comparing premises) here (there are actually four different calculators there that let you do different things). Thanks go to Cam Spiers for their development.

@Myself,

Having read PH, I can confirm that he introduces Bayes’ Theorem in a way that any reasonable-minded person who can follow a rational argument can understand.

At its core, Bayes’ Theorem is actually extremely simple math (Gr. 6 is about right, perhaps pushing it up to Gr. 8 or 9 if you consider that it requires some modest understanding of variables and the basic algebra of substituting values in the place of variables).

I think the reason many people think Bayes’ Theorem is heady, complicated math is because in its more advanced usage (e.g. in physics where it first became widely used), those applications tend to be rather complex and use Bayes’ Theorem in quite sophisticated ways, often (almost always) requiring esoteric computer models, calculus, and such.

Probably one of the most crucial things Carrier is bringing to the table here is in getting back to that simple core theorem and focusing on *simpler* applications that don’t require all of that advanced machinery. If you’ve dabbled with spreadsheet software, you can easily begin doing interesting investigations using Bayes’ Theorem. You *could* even do it by hand, but that’s a wee bit tedious after a while and prone to error.

If you don’t already have spreadsheet software, Open Office has a pretty decent one that’s entirely free.

I know writing a rebuttal such as this is time-consuming, and a drain on one’s patience, but I do believe it serves a valuable purpose for the public such as us onlookers to the debate. I read the whole thing and was glad you wrote it. I learned a few new tidbits, too, so that’s a bonus. Thanks again! 🙂