Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[JaysonR]

And finally - as for Jayson solemnly telling us (and I do appreciate his generally neutral and polite posts in all of this), that this is simply the way this branch of religious history works and we just have to accept that.

A bit of a correction here.
I wasn't conveying that "Religious History" works this way and everything else doesn't.

The entire field of History itself works this way; every part of it.

And yes, we do have to just accept how the field works in the exact same manner as we have to just accept how the field of Theoretical Physics works.

Fields of study aren't public domain; if you want to change the way they work, then you have to do what someone like Carrier is doing and go get all of the paper work to show why anyone in the field should listen to you, and then set about proving your proposition is more sound than the current method of accomplishing work in the field.


Now, does the Historical record of Christianity have a problem?
I would say yes; this is my opinion - I can't change the field.
The problem that I have with the field is that Theologians are involved by their own selves; not as aids or resources.

It's not unusual for Historians to, for example, speak to and ask for the aid from Buddhist Monks in deciphering some rather challenging texts, or aiding in helping to understanding the anthropological value contained within them.

What's a bit unique about the Historical record of Christianity is that it has religiously trained individuals working on declarations of History by no other merit than they went through a theological schooling program; not an Historical program (actually; this is a problem with American [not sure about Europe] academia in general; "theological schools" should not be considered academic enterprises anymore than yoga certificates are [even if theological schools are worth mountains more than "yoga class" academically]).

I find that to be rather a problem.
If a particular viewpoint is expressed or proposed and the idea arrives from a theologian without backing support from an anthropologist, historian, or paleographer; I'm not likely to put much value in the proposition.

I have this same approach all around.
If someone is an archeologist, for example, and they are reaching out into incredible propositions of anthropology and do not have a supporting anthropologist in their propositions; I'm equally not likely to put much value in the proposition (who could I possibly be talking about I wonder).

That is the only issue that I have; theologians working alone.


Now, to counter that (yes, to counter my own argument), however, I would say this.

To be "taken seriously" in the Historical academic community, you have to have your book published by a peer review publisher (a rather short list of publishers; and rather snooty on acceptance).

Most authors, if they want such publishing, will have their book peer reviewed by no less than two colleagues (and usually one of those two are picked because for their skepticism or critique of the topic specifically), or more.

After that is done, then the book is off to the publishers with the edits written in, or noted to be done, as per the peer review's requests.
Then it's considered for publishing, and if it is accepted, then the book is published.

Most first peer review publishings an academic will do within the field of History are with a University Press (typically the university they went to).

Here's some example Academic Press' (peer review press) that are not University Press':

• Lynne Rienner Publishers
• Palgrave MacMillan
• Paradigm Publishers
• Routledge
• Rowman and Littlefield Publishers

So if I really have a problem with Theologians, then I only have a problem with those who publish outside of the Academic publication circle, and if they are outside of that circle...then who cares?!

The next "Jesus" book you pick up, check the publisher on the internet.
Not an Academic publisher? PUT IT DOWN! It's just some guy blowing steam for money!

 

[dejudge]

The idea of using Bayes' Theorem has been thrown around as if it's the wonder-drug solution to all uncertainties of History and that History should just sweepingly move to this method for establishing Historicity.

Who says Bayes Theorem is a wonder drug?

Bayes Theorem merely gives a NUMERICAL quantity for Probability just like any other mathematical equation for Probability.

You seem not to understand the difference between Probability and Certainty.

Bayes Theorem is really applicable to Probability--not to Certainty.

 

[Brainache]

Who says Bayes Theorem is a wonder drug?

Bayes Theorem merely gives a NUMERICAL quantity for Probability just like any other mathematical equation for Probability.

You seem not to understand the difference between Probability and Certainty.

Bayes Theorem is really applicable to Probability--not to Certainty.

Tell us more Professor...

 

[dejudge]

A bit of a correction here.
I wasn't conveying that "Religious History" works this way and everything else doesn't.

The entire field of History itself works this way; every part of it.

Why is a non-historian giving the impression he knows how the entire field of History works?

May I remind that people who don't know how the entire field of history works WON'T know if you know what you are talking about.

Fields of study aren't public domain; if you want to change the way they work, then you have to do what someone like Carrier is doing and go get all of the paper work to show why anyone in the field should listen to you, and then set about proving your proposition is more sound than the current method of accomplishing work in the field.

These forums and threads were not set up for such an exercise. There is no requirement at all for anyone here to be involved in Scholarship. If you have little or no regard for what people write on the internet then why are you on the internet?

 

[David Mo]

No. I think it stands outside the domain of normative Christianity, and it has most certainly been embraced by some non-Christian writers. Paine argues it in Chap 3 of the Age of Reason. It has been proposed also by two Jewish authors in recent times. Joel Carmichael in The Death of Jesus and Hyam Maccoby in Revolution in Judaea and other of his works. So even if it is another brand of Christianity (and I am doubtful that it may reasonably be described as such) it is surely not "no more" than that.

You are right. No normative branch of Christianity currently stands up for a resistant Jesus unless we consider the remainders of Liberation Theology, but I doubt that Liberation Theology can be considered 'normative'. But I was thinking in some Judeo-Crhistian strand that would have disappeared after the fall of Jerusalem and the Diaspora, of which only some textual rest can be deduced by means of the difficulty criterion in particular.

 

[David Mo]

The plain and very simple fact is - the bible is inherently unreliable in the first place and should never be trusted in any measure at all, for all the same reasons that anonymous hearsay evidence like that is never allowed in any democratic court (because it’s far below the standard required even to be read to a jury for any consideration at all).

But you insist again and again in ascribing to us a wrong idea! At least some of those who are arguing with you about the existence of Jesus do not "trust" in the Bible. Quite the contrary. We think through what the Bible intends to say intentionally we can find some points that are beyond its intentions, i.e. manipulated or hidden in some way. Any good lawyer knows that the best way to bring to light what a witness hides is pull the thread of something that has escaped him unintentionally. Discuss this and do not ascribe to us beliefs we do not have, please.

 

[pakeha]

...
What's a bit unique about the Historical record of Christianity is that it has religiously trained individuals working on declarations of History by no other merit than they went through a theological schooling program; not an Historical program (actually; this is a problem with American [not sure about Europe] academia in general; "theological schools" should not be considered academic enterprises anymore than yoga certificates are [even if theological schools are worth mountains more than "yoga class" academically]).

I find that to be rather a problem.
If a particular viewpoint is expressed or proposed and the idea arrives from a theologian without backing support from an anthropologist, historian, or paleographer; I'm not likely to put much value in the proposition.

I have this same approach all around.
If someone is an archeologist, for example, and they are reaching out into incredible propositions of anthropology and do not have a supporting anthropologist in their propositions; I'm equally not likely to put much value in the proposition (who could I possibly be talking about I wonder).

That is the only issue that I have; theologians working alone.


Now, to counter that (yes, to counter my own argument), however, I would say this.

To be "taken seriously" in the Historical academic community, you have to have your book published by a peer review publisher (a rather short list of publishers; and rather snooty on acceptance).

Most authors, if they want such publishing, will have their book peer reviewed by no less than two colleagues (and usually one of those two are picked because for their skepticism or critique of the topic specifically), or more.

After that is done, then the book is off to the publishers with the edits written in, or noted to be done, as per the peer review's requests.
Then it's considered for publishing, and if it is accepted, then the book is published.

Most first peer review publishings an academic will do within the field of History are with a University Press (typically the university they went to).

Here's some example Academic Press' (peer review press) that are not University Press':

• Lynne Rienner Publishers
• Palgrave MacMillan
• Paradigm Publishers
• Routledge
• Rowman and Littlefield Publishers

So if I really have a problem with Theologians, then I only have a problem with those who publish outside of the Academic publication circle, and if they are outside of that circle...then who cares?!

The next "Jesus" book you pick up, check the publisher on the internet.
Not an Academic publisher? PUT IT DOWN! It's just some guy blowing steam for money!

Thanks for that caveat, JaysonR.

 

[IanS]

The NT may be admissible in a court if its contents are used as evidence. One cannot reject the statements in the NT merely because it is not credible just like the statement of a defendant is not rejected in a court because it may not be credible.

Essentially, anything that a person says or writes can be used against them in a court. And the credibility of any writing may be a court matter.

The statements in the NT can be used against the authors to show that they were not writing history but wrote what people of antiquity BELIEVED.

By the way, the Numerical Data for the Bayesian Theorem does not come from the NT itself.

But the NT is not the defendant in this analogy. The bible itself is not physically appearing in the court as a defendant (i.e. a human person) with a right to speak in it’s own defence.

In the case of claiming a real HJ, the bible is being offered as a witness statement for the consideration of the jury.

But that witness statement is not admissible for all the reasons I listed - it would certainly be ruled out completely as entirely unfit even to be heard by any jury.

So just to clarify that - it's true that a defendant himself or herself has the right to give personal testimony/“evidence” in their own defence saying anything they wish (no matter how crazy). But it's NOT true that the words of the bible are the defendant in this case … the words of the bible are a witness statement being offered before the court as evidence of Jesus …

... and a witness statement like that, coming as a chain of hearsay from anonymous unavailable witnesses, certainly would not be allowed as fit to be considered by the jury in any court.

 

[Brainache]

But the NT is not the defendant in this analogy. The bible itself is not physically appearing in the court as a defendant (i.e. a human person) with a right to speak in it’s own defence.

In the case of claiming a real HJ, the bible is being offered as a witness statement for the consideration of the jury.

But that witness statement is not admissible for all the reasons I listed - it would certainly be ruled out completely as entirely unfit even to be heard by any jury.

So just to clarify that - it's true that a defendant himself or herself has the right to give personal testimony/“evidence” in their own defence saying anything they wish (no matter how crazy). But it's NOT true that the words of the bible are the defendant in this case … the words of the bible are a witness statement being offered before the court as evidence of Jesus …

... and a witness statement like that, coming as a chain of hearsay from anonymous unavailable witnesses, certainly would not be allowed as fit to be considered by the jury in any court.

Still looking at it as if it was just a single piece of writing and also ignoring the Apocrypha and Early Church Fathers again I see.

What was the charge again?

Existing without a licence?

 

[IanS]

A bit of a correction here.
I wasn't conveying that "Religious History" works this way and everything else doesn't.

The entire field of History itself works this way; every part of it.

And yes, we do have to just accept how the field works in the exact same manner as we have to just accept how the field of Theoretical Physics works.

Fields of study aren't public domain; if you want to change the way they work, then you have to do what someone like Carrier is doing and go get all of the paper work to show why anyone in the field should listen to you, and then set about proving your proposition is more sound than the current method of accomplishing work in the field.


Now, does the Historical record of Christianity have a problem?
I would say yes; this is my opinion - I can't change the field.
The problem that I have with the field is that Theologians are involved by their own selves; not as aids or resources.

It's not unusual for Historians to, for example, speak to and ask for the aid from Buddhist Monks in deciphering some rather challenging texts, or aiding in helping to understanding the anthropological value contained within them.

What's a bit unique about the Historical record of Christianity is that it has religiously trained individuals working on declarations of History by no other merit than they went through a theological schooling program; not an Historical program (actually; this is a problem with American [not sure about Europe] academia in general; "theological schools" should not be considered academic enterprises anymore than yoga certificates are [even if theological schools are worth mountains more than "yoga class" academically]).

I find that to be rather a problem.
If a particular viewpoint is expressed or proposed and the idea arrives from a theologian without backing support from an anthropologist, historian, or paleographer; I'm not likely to put much value in the proposition.

I have this same approach all around.
If someone is an archeologist, for example, and they are reaching out into incredible propositions of anthropology and do not have a supporting anthropologist in their propositions; I'm equally not likely to put much value in the proposition (who could I possibly be talking about I wonder).

That is the only issue that I have; theologians working alone.


Now, to counter that (yes, to counter my own argument), however, I would say this.

To be "taken seriously" in the Historical academic community, you have to have your book published by a peer review publisher (a rather short list of publishers; and rather snooty on acceptance).

Most authors, if they want such publishing, will have their book peer reviewed by no less than two colleagues (and usually one of those two are picked because for their skepticism or critique of the topic specifically), or more.

After that is done, then the book is off to the publishers with the edits written in, or noted to be done, as per the peer review's requests.
Then it's considered for publishing, and if it is accepted, then the book is published.

Most first peer review publishings an academic will do within the field of History are with a University Press (typically the university they went to).

Here's some example Academic Press' (peer review press) that are not University Press':

• Lynne Rienner Publishers
• Palgrave MacMillan
• Paradigm Publishers
• Routledge
• Rowman and Littlefield Publishers

So if I really have a problem with Theologians, then I only have a problem with those who publish outside of the Academic publication circle, and if they are outside of that circle...then who cares?!

The next "Jesus" book you pick up, check the publisher on the internet.
Not an Academic publisher? PUT IT DOWN! It's just some guy blowing steam for money!

Well we certainly do not have to accept it. That is the point.

We certainly do not have to accept that (a)their methods are reliable in a case such as that of Jesus where there is actually no credible reliable evidence of the person at all, and (b)we do not have to accept their conclusions drawn from such inadmissible fatally flawed "evidence" as anonymously written gospels, relaying stories from yet more anonymous people, who apparently thought that other people had once known Jesus, but where none of those people were ever available to confirm a single word that they were supposed to have said about Jesus ... and all of that known, in fact, not even from the anonymous writers of the gospels, but only ever from even more anonymous Christian religious copyists writing several centuries later.

That is not credible reliable evidence of the existence of Jesus, and we certainly do not have to accept that as reliable evidence (no matter what any biblical scholars wish to accept).

And nor do I believe that these biblical scholars are working in the same way as all other non-religious historians, when concluding on such unreliable evidence as copies of the gospels, that Jesus existed. I do not believe that non-religious historians would conclude that any such individual, described in that way (as constantly miraculous) only in anonymous hearsay devotional preaching pericopes, would similarly conclude on that sort of evidence that any other historical figure “certainly” existed, or even on that evidential basis that existence was even “likely” … I’m pretty sure that real historians, wherever they can, prefer to rely on the discovery of physical evidence which can at least be objectively examined, and/or written evidence which is at least relatively contemporarily written, and where the writers of such evidence are named and known and checkable as to their likely accuracy and truthfulness … none of which is the case with the bible writing (and that bible is the only evidence offered in the case of Jesus).

 

[Brainache]

Well we certainly do not have to accept it. That is the point.

We certainly do not have to accept that (a)their methods are reliable in a case such as that of Jesus where there is actually no credible reliable evidence of the person at all, and (b)we do not have to accept their conclusions drawn from such inadmissible fatally flawed "evidence" as anonymously written gospels, relaying stories from yet more anonymous people, who apparently thought that other people had once known Jesus, but where none of those people were ever available to confirm a single word that they were supposed to have said about Jesus ... and all of that known, in fact, not even from the anonymous writers of the gospels, but only ever from even more anonymous Christian religious copyists writing several centuries later.

That is not credible reliable evidence of the existence of Jesus, and we certainly do not have to accept that as reliable evidence (no matter what any biblical scholars wish to accept).

And nor do I believe that these biblical scholars are working in the same way as all other non-religious historians, when concluding on such unreliable evidence as copies of the gospels, that Jesus existed. I do not believe that non-religious historians would conclude that any such individual, described in that way (as constantly miraculous) only in anonymous hearsay devotional preaching pericopes, would similarly conclude on that sort of evidence that any other historical figure “certainly” existed, or even on that evidential basis that existence was even “likely” … I’m pretty sure that real historians, wherever they can, prefer to rely on the discovery of physical evidence which can at least be objectively examined, and/or written evidence which is at least relatively contemporarily written, and where the writers of such evidence are named and known and checkable as to their likely accuracy and truthfulness … none of which is the case with the bible writing (and that bible is the only evidence offered in the case of Jesus).

Since he apparently has me on ignore, can someone point out to IanS that all Ancient texts are like that for just about everybody who wasn't King.

 

[Belz...]

The NT may be admissible in a court if its contents are used as evidence. One cannot reject the statements in the NT merely because it is not credible just like the statement of a defendant is not rejected in a court because it may not be credible.

Essentially, anything that a person says or writes can be used against them in a court. And the credibility of any writing may be a court matter.

The statements in the NT can be used against the authors to show that they were not writing history but wrote what people of antiquity BELIEVED.

By the way, the Numerical Data for the Bayesian Theorem does not come from the NT itself.

What an amazing coincidence. The NT can only be used to support YOUR position !

 

[Belz...]

Bayes Theorem is really applicable to Probability--not to Certainty.

Wow, then you probably hate the theorem.

Why is a non-historian giving the impression he knows how the entire field of History works?

Your own words apply to you.

 

[Belz...]

Since he apparently has me on ignore, can someone point out to IanS that all Ancient texts are like that for just about everybody who wasn't King.

It's already been pointed out to him. Somehow he feels that Jesus, being king of kings, I guess, must have the same amount of evidence in his favour.

 

[The Norseman]

It’s inherently too unreliable even to be fit for any genuine consideration at all, long before Carrier or anyone decided to try some basics methods in stats (relying on very subjective approximations).

I'm sorry and this could be misunderstanding but it still seems like you're not understanding Carrier and his position.

Eg - ask yourself this - do you think Carriers method would stand up in court? The answer is you would not even get that far, because the court would rule that the biblical writing is inherently unfit as evidence anyway!

Not true as dejudge has already outlined.

ps:- I have read Carrier's book, by the way (just for the record).

Then please explain how I am just not getting it. Some quotes from the book would be very helpful for me. Thank you in advance.

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Positive = "it happened"
Negative = "it didn't happen"

If that's the universe of discourse, then a probabilistic approach starts with both being possible. Depending on whose beliefs are being modeled, then one, the other or neither hypothesis could be given favor over the other. To say that the probability starts with "the negative," and to say nothing about the simulatneous recognition of "the positive" is an unjust criticism of probability.

Uncertainty, not probability, means that both alternatives are seriously possible. If not, then I have no problem of uncertainty to worry about, probabilistically or otherwise.

There is a certain amount of your post, especially towards the end, that is premised upon my "inheriting" the positive or the negative, and similar expressions. Since this is not a description of probability, nor the description of something probability conflicts with, I have no other comment to make besides that about those parts of your posting. On some other points you raise:

As part of my daytime occupation, I am a programmer.
"Run" simply is a habit for me to convey when any computation is accomplished.

Thank you for explaining that. The task before us, however, is modeling. There wlll likely be calculation once the model is built, but building the model need not involve any calculation at all. With luck, then, you can see my confusion.

"Conceptually" means that for all intents of History (not Maths), relying on only a probability is to inherit a negative and wait for the probability to indicate a positive (a probability worth noting as "sure, that may have likely happened") before accepting some event or figure into the Historical record.

Probably not in the current case. If the decison maker's ("DM") confidence in a historical Jesus is too low for the DM to "accept" HJ as an established fact, then only additional evidence (or a change of heart) will remedy that. However, there is nothing in probability theory that requires anybody to accept, or to refrain from accepting, any uncertain proposition on any current state of the evidence. Probability is neutral. That which probability models may or may not be neutral at any particular stage of the inference problem. If not neutral, then either direction might be favored, depending on DM's estimate of the state of the evidence.

The idea of using Bayes' Theorem has been thrown around as if it's the wonder-drug solution to all uncertainties of History and that History should just sweepingly move to this method for establishing Historicity.

That's not my position. For one thing, I have always acknowledged that history as a profession may adopt goals other than representing states of knowledge about past events. To the extent that history chooses to do what probability doesn't do, then probability will be less useful to history (or, alternatively, probability will need to be supplemented with another facet of the Bayesian theory, a method for decision making that takes values and preference into account).

The only point I was making was that the method is an entire method, not one tool. It doesn't really make any sense to replace an entire method with one tool.

Then we differ about that. Bayesian theory, since Laplace, has been a comprehensive, domain independent account of reasoning about truth under uncertainty. Probability is a "tool," but the theory which guides its application to uncertain reasoning is a method, not a tool (using what I understand your terminology to be).

Most probabilities ran would result in Historical negatives, not positives.

And the fog rolls back in. With respect to any proposition, you know it to be true, or you know its negation to be true, or else you do not know which. If you do not know which, then probability offers you an opportunity to express and to explain your confidence about the various alternatives.

There is no "positive" or "negative" that can be blamed on probability. These result from the fact of your uncertainty. If history prefers to operate on a "pick one and look at the rest" basis, then that's fine. But since that policy is unresponsive to the inference problem that many non-historians have, then it is an excellent reason for any rational person to look elsewhere for guidance in solving their actual problems.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm putting this part first as it helps clarify things following.

Positive = "it happened"
Negative = "it didn't happen"


As part of my daytime occupation, I am a programmer.
"Run" simply is a habit for me to convey when any computation is accomplished.

"Literal" would be that the value begins as a negative integer; obviously, probability does not do this, so I was clearing up that such was not my intention.

"Conceptually" means that for all intents of History (not Maths), relying on only a probability is to inherit a negative and wait for the probability to indicate a positive (a probability worth noting as "sure, that may have likely happened") before accepting some event or figure into the Historical record.

Is an if/then statement positive or negative?

That wasn't really my point.
The idea of using Bayes' Theorem has been thrown around as if it's the wonder-drug solution to all uncertainties of History and that History should just sweepingly move to this method for establishing Historicity.

No, it should not. It should use probability models (as well as any logical tools which assist) to aid, but not replace the method.

The only point I was making was that the method is an entire method, not one tool. It doesn't really make any sense to replace an entire method with one tool.

I find it odd that you would use such an unreliable tool as the historical method rather than a different tool that simply assigns numbers to probabilities that everyone is making anyway.

The point of this section was to highlight that we full well understand that we have a great lack of most of the material regarding the greater chunks of the Ancient record, so relying on probabilities to indicate something to us as the primary method of quantifying Ancient History isn't really that gainful as an alternative to the current Historical Method, as it would be erroneous to negate mass amount of notated History simply because a single probability indicated that a particular event or figure may or may not have occurred or existed; especially when we full well understand that we are absent much material.

Would you please provide more details of how the historical method is more accurate than Baye's Theory in this instance?

It would it be helpful for me in understanding both concepts. Also, it might be helpful for others that are lurking as well.

Most probabilities ran would result in Historical negatives, not positives.
Currently, we accept the positive and work to prove a negative.
On the average, this method works out fairly well; even if specific cases slip through in both directions occasionally.

What evidence do you have to support your claims in this paragraph?

Flipping the other way would have us run a probability, which in several cases would result in a probability indicating it didn't occur, and then revising it as we get more information and maybe one day entering the concept into the Historical record.
But there's an issue here, I've mentioned before.
No one would work on the position of the positive if the event or figure wasn't entered into the record in the first place.

Look how long it has taken to get back to actually getting the official Historical record to recognize and re-open the inquiry into the Native American heritage sites and accepting archeological evidence that was shuffled off and dismissed as unreliable for political reasons in the 19th century.

Why wouldn't BT work in this case?

Assuming the negative and hoping that someone will just one day prove a positive meanwhile the tiny piece you do have sits on a back shelf in the belly of the Smithsonian among several countless pieces of material people have forgotten about because they are filed in the "forgery" and dismissed section (the attic of History if you will), is a very uneventful means of proceeding through Historical inquiry.

Did the whole point of BT means that you continue to collect and utilize every piece of evidence that you can. One continues to look for more evidence to apply; there is no discarding of any piece of evidence, positive or negative.

I'm all for using a variety of tools, but we do actually have to inherit the positive and prove the negative, and not just assume the negative until the probability calculation spits out a probability we deem is worth considering the positive.


And here's the catch; you have items to estimate the truth about for yourself because the positive is inherited.
If it wasn't, and we went the other way around, then you wouldn't have nearly anything to investigate from Ancient History.

Again, may I ask you to please demonstrate how BT is an inaccurate tool compared to the Historical Method?

Instead, there would be angry people storming the internet, after a few generations, demanding to know why pieces of information weren't being entered into the public record as Historical and instead were being shuffled off to the belly of museums for no one to request, digitize, or see on the average.
You wouldn't have people making their dissertations on the current Historical recorded line of the Egyptian Kings because most of them wouldn't be accepted as evident; there would just be a big black hole in that section of the History book.

I'm sorry but again I do not understand why you think BT would be a poor choice of tools to use in this these instances.

If you wanted to argue that the Indus Script was a root language related to Phoenician you wouldn't even have that idea in mind.
Why not?
Well, the probabilities would strongly suggest (as they do today already) that all of the Indus Script artifacts of name plates that we have found aren't actually indications of a language at all and the Indus Script language would be wiped out from the Historical record.

Again how are you arriving at this conclusion? It simply does not make any sense to me. Could you please explain further?

Instead, you would have no entry on the matter. You may one day look at all of the name plates and see a pattern and think that it looks like there's a language and then propose that to the community in general, but then everyone would just show you the probability indicating that it wasn't an indication of language and to shut up and go away.

Instead, we inherit these items as indications of a language, as impossible as that seems, and folks work passionately on trying to unlock the code of exactly how this language worked and what the language even was, or whether these name plates even have representations of a language, or whether some parts are part of a language and other parts not.

People would still be working fervently on collecting as much information / data as possible to include in BT to have a more accurate finding of a truth value.

Once, the same thing somewhat happened to the Maya language.
People made the mistake (yes, the mistake) of just thinking the wall decorations were just decorations; clearly the unorganized pattern and massive diversity wasn't a language. It was just art work.

Then the community found out this was a mistake; wrong. Instead, there was a variation in the way of expressing the components of the language which was artistic and the variation was rather wide.
Now Mayan walls are re-examined (and have been) as massive packed walls of written records which were entirely absent previously.

That was rather lucky.

How does failure of the then in-use historical method have anything to do with BT?

Again, I have no problem with using Bayes Theorem inside of the Historical Method, but I do have a problem with up and replacing the Historical Method with Bayes Theorem (and honestly, I don't understand Carrier to be suggesting this approach for History at large, so the application of such upon any figure specifically in such a manner is queer, to say the least).

Alright.

 

[The Norseman]

Tell us more Professor...

That's funny I don't believe anybody in this thread is a professor. Why do you continue in this fashion? It is not helpful.

 

[The Norseman]

But the NT is not the defendant in this analogy. The bible itself is not physically appearing in the court as a defendant (i.e. a human person) with a right to speak in it’s own defence.

In the case of claiming a real HJ, the bible is being offered as a witness statement for the consideration of the jury.

But that witness statement is not admissible for all the reasons I listed - it would certainly be ruled out completely as entirely unfit even to be heard by any jury.

Okay, since you seem to be insistent on following this particular line of reasoning, can you please quote some rules of evidence which supports you?

 

[JaysonR]

Norseman,

Before I respond later in full, I wanted to check on something.
Do you understand that I am not opposed to BT, only against removing -entirely- the Historical Method and replacing it with only BT?