The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”
https://vridar.org/2024/12/13/the-folly ... g-history/
I did not decide for a literary, a composite, gospel Jesus figure by the use of Bayes. It's irrelevant to the Jesus historicity debate. All anyone can do is read the gospel story and make a judgement on that story. Perhaps one begins, like I did, by removing the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection - and begin to doubt the historical existence of the gospel Jesus. Yes, all the mythology could be applied to an historical man - but I soon began to think that would be a very non Jewish approach to the gospel story. Perhaps then, the gospel story was allegory. An allegory with reference, with reflections of history but not, in and off itself, an historical account.
That approach led me to the Roman occupation of Judaea and Hasmonean/Jewish history. I did not give a thought to the so called church fathers. Josephus became pivotal and of course led back to Philo. Writers with, so to speak, feet on the ground in respect to that Roman occupation during the years in which the Jesus story is set. A lived experience rather than the imaginative gospel interpretations of the later church fathers.
One makes a choice, a judgement, on the gospel Jesus story. If it's a historical gospel Jesus (of some variant) that one judges to be the best, the most likely, choice - then job done as historical research will take one nowhere whatsoever in establishing historicity for ones choice. If, on the other hand, one makes a judgement for ahistoricity - then research into the early origins of what became christianity can move forward. That research will not get waylaid by the imagination of church fathers, it will not get sidetracked from the only road that gets to ground zero - Hasmonean/Jewish history during Roman occupation of Judaea.
Neil Godfrey has spend time on this forum. Years spent insisting that the approach to the gospel Jesus story should be history based - that research into that story should adhere to the same methods and logic of historians of any era of historical interest. Perhaps its time to begin to deal with the gospel Jesus story in a manner that reflects the methods of historians rather than the imaginative accounts of church fathers. While it might be interesting to learn how the gospel story was interpreted by the church fathers - all that is a side-show, a bit like a movie based on a writer's novel. As many people know, movies often take liberties with the author's written words or intent. That's the way with interpretations.
Jesus research needs to get behind the interpretations of the gospel story. Yes, as any historian knows, interpretations are often necessary to understand the evidence that research provides. To write a narrative of the past can require storytelling - but first comes the actual history - the facts, the feet on the ground, the coins, the artefacts. Only then can an account be arrived at, a narrative written, about the early origins of what became known as christianity.
https://vridar.org/2024/12/13/the-folly ... g-history/
Reason #1: If our question is simply, Did Jesus Exist? then it is meaningless. What is of interest is the question of how Christianity originated. What might Jesus have done that gave birth to the Christian religion? What did others do during the time of Jesus or after him that shaped or established Christianity? Those are the meaningful questions. Simply saying Jesus did or did not exist is somewhat pointless — unless, perhaps, one wants a negative answer in order to irritate believers.
Reason #2: If by using Bayes one concludes that Jesus “probably did not exist” then again, we have to ask, So what? If it appears unlikely that he existed then after weighing up the probabilities on the basis of the various strands of data, that tells the historian nothing useful at all. Simply saying that Jesus fits the pattern of mythical persons, if that’s where Bayesian inference leads, does not answer the question of whether he existed or not. Simply saying that there is, say, an 80% chance he did not exist still leaves open the possibility that he did exist. So what has been achieved? Nothing useful for the historian at all. Likewise, calculating that there is an 80% chance that he did exist would still leave open the possibility that he did not. The historian is no better off with either result.
Reason #2: If by using Bayes one concludes that Jesus “probably did not exist” then again, we have to ask, So what? If it appears unlikely that he existed then after weighing up the probabilities on the basis of the various strands of data, that tells the historian nothing useful at all. Simply saying that Jesus fits the pattern of mythical persons, if that’s where Bayesian inference leads, does not answer the question of whether he existed or not. Simply saying that there is, say, an 80% chance he did not exist still leaves open the possibility that he did exist. So what has been achieved? Nothing useful for the historian at all. Likewise, calculating that there is an 80% chance that he did exist would still leave open the possibility that he did not. The historian is no better off with either result.
I did not decide for a literary, a composite, gospel Jesus figure by the use of Bayes. It's irrelevant to the Jesus historicity debate. All anyone can do is read the gospel story and make a judgement on that story. Perhaps one begins, like I did, by removing the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection - and begin to doubt the historical existence of the gospel Jesus. Yes, all the mythology could be applied to an historical man - but I soon began to think that would be a very non Jewish approach to the gospel story. Perhaps then, the gospel story was allegory. An allegory with reference, with reflections of history but not, in and off itself, an historical account.
That approach led me to the Roman occupation of Judaea and Hasmonean/Jewish history. I did not give a thought to the so called church fathers. Josephus became pivotal and of course led back to Philo. Writers with, so to speak, feet on the ground in respect to that Roman occupation during the years in which the Jesus story is set. A lived experience rather than the imaginative gospel interpretations of the later church fathers.
One makes a choice, a judgement, on the gospel Jesus story. If it's a historical gospel Jesus (of some variant) that one judges to be the best, the most likely, choice - then job done as historical research will take one nowhere whatsoever in establishing historicity for ones choice. If, on the other hand, one makes a judgement for ahistoricity - then research into the early origins of what became christianity can move forward. That research will not get waylaid by the imagination of church fathers, it will not get sidetracked from the only road that gets to ground zero - Hasmonean/Jewish history during Roman occupation of Judaea.
Neil Godfrey has spend time on this forum. Years spent insisting that the approach to the gospel Jesus story should be history based - that research into that story should adhere to the same methods and logic of historians of any era of historical interest. Perhaps its time to begin to deal with the gospel Jesus story in a manner that reflects the methods of historians rather than the imaginative accounts of church fathers. While it might be interesting to learn how the gospel story was interpreted by the church fathers - all that is a side-show, a bit like a movie based on a writer's novel. As many people know, movies often take liberties with the author's written words or intent. That's the way with interpretations.
Jesus research needs to get behind the interpretations of the gospel story. Yes, as any historian knows, interpretations are often necessary to understand the evidence that research provides. To write a narrative of the past can require storytelling - but first comes the actual history - the facts, the feet on the ground, the coins, the artefacts. Only then can an account be arrived at, a narrative written, about the early origins of what became known as christianity.
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Fri Dec 13, 2024 12:59 am