The central point is that Richard Carrier<\/a> is seeking to quantify historical probabilities in more concrete, mathematical terms \u2013 in terms of Bayes\u2019 Theorem<\/a>, to be precise. Carrier argues that, in ideal cases, this is what historians are doing now, but often in a way that lacks quantitative rigor and thus is more prone to subjectivity, with the result that assessments of what is \u201cprobable\u201d in fact vary.<\/p>\n If he can pull it off, and find an academic publisher for his work, this should create quite an interesting discussion.<\/p>\n What leads me to be somewhat\u00a0pessimistic of how this will\u00a0be applied\u00a0in practice is Carrier\u2019s positive description of Earl Doherty\u2019s work, which he describes as \u201cjust short of Ph.D. quality.\u201d Now, to be fair, his point seems to be that there have been PhD theses in history that were worse than what Doherty produced, and since they get taken seriously enough to be engaged by historians (even if only to argue against them), so should Doherty.\u00a0Be that as it may, Carrier seems to me to be too willing to take what is a cosmology that seems to be distinctive of the Ascension of Isaiah<\/a> (which, I agree with Carrier, far more people ought to read and study) and assume it could provide the background to early Christian thought, and provide a setting for the Jesus myth in the sky rather than on earth. To take a work that is only attested in a Christian redaction in a later time<\/a>, and trust it to provide information about thought in an earlier time, is something that Carrier in this very same interview is unwilling to do with Josephus. And so it seems to me that, were someone to apply a mathematical assessment of Carrier\u2019s consistency in his treatment of sources, they might find this problematic. But I will admit that figuring out the equation for such a problem is beyond my level of mathematical skill. But since the same\u00a0may be true for many scholars of antiquity, there will certainly be challenges for the adoption of more mathematical models for historical research, even if Carrier\u2019s case is persuasive.<\/p>\n Some indication of what\u00a0Carrier has been working on can be seen in his chapter in the recent book Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth<\/em><\/a>.![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1616141891\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-8171999917712311662?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"