RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 26, 2015 at 4:25 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2015 at 4:26 pm by Minimalist.)
I didn't want to close the book without putting Carrier's ultimate conclusion in.
Now, let me say one thing. I am not overly impressed with Carrier's math...and for a reason he himself admits. In many cases the probability assigned to a supposed "historical" event is arbitrarily high. I understand why he did this. He is trying to shut up the HJ types who would otherwise accuse him of dismissing their bullshit out of hand. But if you can't have confidence in the numbers you are using in math then what good is it?
Far more impressive are the analyses which Carrier brings to the documents themselves.
It was most assuredly directed right at you, Nestor.
Quote:In other words, in my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in
I 2,000.6 Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of
zero. For comparison, your l ifetime probability of being struck by lightning
is around I in I 0,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently,
I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus.
Pg. 600
Now, let me say one thing. I am not overly impressed with Carrier's math...and for a reason he himself admits. In many cases the probability assigned to a supposed "historical" event is arbitrarily high. I understand why he did this. He is trying to shut up the HJ types who would otherwise accuse him of dismissing their bullshit out of hand. But if you can't have confidence in the numbers you are using in math then what good is it?
Far more impressive are the analyses which Carrier brings to the documents themselves.
It was most assuredly directed right at you, Nestor.
