Richard Carrier and The Bayes Craze (part 2)

Part 1 to this article)

Richard Carrier wants to indict all historiography not based upon Bayes Theorem. Carrier reasons that we can think of the past as future in those areas where we don't have the info. (see part 1). The problem is past events can't be quantified as to their probability because they happened. We may not know the outcome and we think of the likelihood or unlikelihood of an event, but the more information we get the less probable it becomes, yet I'm talking about events that happened. Events that we know happened are not probable they are done deals. The future is not like that because future events are always probable until they happen. We can wind up thinking event X is not likely to have happened when it did happen. An example, how likely is it that an eye witness to a great battle would get the date wrong? Yet Josephus did. The problem is what assumptions do we make (with Bayes where to set the prior probability). I think that's the real reason historians never put numbers to historical probability.

I base this upon a discussion with my old professor, Church historian William S. Babcock, although he never used Bayes for history but he was a math major at Brown. He says history is always matter of probability but we don't put numbers top historical probability because there is no way to know what numbers to put. In order to start the process of using Bayes you have to know something definite. In dealing with the past one is not dealing with a true probability but with an unkown which is actually happened. If we find it happened it's not probable. Until we do find that we don't know what assumption to make.There are only certain things for which Bayes can be used.

R. Joseph Hoffmann says:

What is known by people who use Bayes’s theorem to advantage is that there are only certain conditions when it is appropriate to use it. Even those conditions can sound a bit onerous: In general, its use is warranted when a problem warrants its use, e.g. when:

•The sample is partitioned into a set of mutually exclusive events { A1, A2, . . . , An }.
•Within the sample space, there exists an event B, for which P(B) > 0.
•The analytical goal is to compute a conditional probability of the form: P ( Ak | B ).
•You know at least one of the two sets of probabilities described below. •P( Ak ∩ B ) for each Ak
•P( Ak ) and P( B | Ak ) for each Ak ...The key to the right use of Bayes is that it can be useful in calculating conditional probabilities: that is, the probability that event A occurs given that event B has occurred. Normally such probabilities are used to forecast whether an event is likely to occur...

So far, you are thinking, this is the kind of thing you would use for weather, rocket launches, roulette tables and divorces since we tend to think of conditional probability as an event that has not happened but can be predicted to happen, or not happen, based on existing, verifiable occurrences. How can it be useful in determining whether events “actually” transpired in the past, that is, when the sample field itself consists of what has already occurred (or not occurred) and when B is the probability of it having happened? Or how it can be useful in dealing with events claimed to be sui generis since the real world conditions would lack both precedence and context?[1]...

That's where Carrier tries to think of the past like the future."To put it crudely: Not knowing whether something will happen can be treated in the same way as not knowing whether something has happened by jiggering the formula. Managed properly, he is confident that Bayes will sort everything out in short order:"?[2]

Carrier puts it:

If you treat every probability you assign in the Bayesian equation as if it were a syllogism in an argument and defend each premise as sound (as you would for any other syllogism) Bayes’s theorem will solve all the problems that have left [Gerd] Theissen and others confounded when trying to assess questions of historicity. There is really no other method on the table since all the historicity criteria so far have been shown to be flawed to the point of being in effect (or in fact) entirely useless. ).:"?[3]

I may have made this point in part 1, Hoffmann makes it as well: If all the historical works of the past is useless upon what, pray tell, does one set the prior? If t5he data used for Bayes is useless then Bayes is useless as well. More importantly, Hoffmann points out, "Bayes does not generate criteria and method; it depends on them, just as the solution to Marie’s dilemma depends on real world events, not on prophecy."[4]

Hoffmann tells an anecdote that his former student was speaking of Carrierer's assertion thqat Bayes can be used "where no 'real world data and conditions' can be said to apply." The Student remarked, "Is this insistence [Carrier’s] of trying to invoke Bayes’ theorem in such contexts a manifestation of some sort of Math or Physics envy? Or is it due to the fact that forcing mathematics into one’s writings apparently confers on them some form of ‘scientific’ legitimacy?"[5]

At this point Hoffmann backs my assertion that Bayes, when applied to an area of belief for which we have little real data is entirely subjective. It's a matter of guessing and prejudice as to what basic assumptions to make. As he says plug in different values you get different answers. The next point he makes backs up my point about the illusion of technique. That is the point that it's a gimmick, he's trying to lend scientific credibility to his opinions. "Do there exist good reasons to suppose the methods commonly used in different areas that have grown over time are somehow fatally flawed if they are not currently open to some form of mathematization?"(Emphasis mine).[6]

In his review of Carrier's book James McGrath emphasizes applying Bayes to history is just a matter of applying formal logic to historical reasoning."It does not turn history into mathematics, but nor does it guarantee that those who purport to use it will always manage to adequately assess their own blind spots, shortcomings, and clutching at straws in an attempt to reach a desired conclusion."[7]

In one respect I disagree with McGrath. He says that in using Bayes for history, those who do are not being less precise and that Carrier rightly (according to him) points out that numbers lurk behind the assessments of all historians."All probabilities that historians currently use have numbers hidden behind them, as Carrier emphasizes. And so it is useful to be forced to articulate more clearly whether we think that the likelihood is closer to 70% or closer to 90%..."."[8]

There's a lot wrong with this. First, I disagree that they have numbers behind them. What they really have behind them is events that are not probable but have already happened. In trying to attach numbers that can't be there they are merely trying to ad a verification they don't really have and can't have. All the numbers really tell us is what our guesses are. Secondly I don't think we need the pretense of numbers to force u8s to clarify because we choose according to our prejudices so the numbers only serve to reinforce our prejudices. The numbers enable us to rationalize our prejudices and give them the illusion of scientific acuity.

For some reason McGrath tried to be conciliatory to Carrier and it's absurd. He says:

If the internet mythicists of today were to take this advice to heart, they might work on trying to actually publish scholarly works in appropriate venues, instead of complaining about their being dismissed in a manner that Carrier rightly says is appropriate when people without relevant expertise try to bypass peer review and scholarly discussion and promote their ideas directly to a public ill prepared to assess them...."[9]

Carrier has tried to involve some academics in his work but if he has done peer reviewed work in journals I don't see it. I do agree that Carrier has some good pointds but then he ruins it by makes such strident claims. He essentially says he's the nly valid historian. If that's not snearing at peer review I don't know what is. Then I go over to The Secular Outpost to argue with Lowder some more and find someone illustrating the kind of thing I' talking about in the use of Bayes. Those outpost guys are mad for Bayes. The context here is argument over resurrection. One of them says:

Jesus didn't appear to anyone. The dead do not appear. For that matter, many of the followers of Satya Sai Baba (not just some ancient books that claim that the followers claimed that) claim that he appeared to them, etc. - but he didn't; neither did Jesus.One may simply point out that the resurrection did not happen, on account of the astronomically slim prior probability, [emphasis mine] and the lack of any evidence sufficient to overcome that, or even coming close to overcome that, or even to introduce reasonable doubt. The probability that Jesus was never crucified - even if low - is surely much higher than the probability that he resurrected, even if counting all of the evidence or alleged evidence in support of the crucifixion.

I have to wonder if this guy understands the concept of probability. He doesn't understand the concept of miracles. Probability is just odds given the number of chances that a thing will occur. While a miracle is something impossible, that is not supposed to happen; something that left to its own devises nature could never come up with on its own. Miracles have no probability they are impossible. God is either necessary or impossible. God cannot be a maybe God cannot be something that might or might not have existed. If God exists he has to exist and if God does not exist (apologies to Paul Tillich)[10] it's because it's impossible for there to be God. So in setting a prior for God at all one is begging the question. There can't be a probability for something that has to be or that if it is not, cannot be. This just illustrates my point that atheists refuse to study theology or ace the hard issues of theology.

1 R. Joseph Hoffmann, "proving what?," The New Oxonian: Religion and culture for the intellectually impatientPosted on May 29, 2012 Blog, URL:
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/ (accessed 10/30/150)

following graduation from Harvard Divinity School and the University of Oxford, R. Joseph Hoffmann was tutor in Greek at Keble College and Senior Scholar at St Cross College, Oxford, and Wissenschaftlicher Assistant in Patristics and Classical Studies at the University of Heidelberg. He's an editor of Sources of the Jesus Tradition, Carrier is a contributor.

2 Ibid.

3 (Carrier, “Bayes Theorem for Beginners,” in Sources of the Jesus Tradition, Amherst NY:Prometheus Books, R. Joseph Hoffman (ed.), 2010 - Religion 107.

4 Hoffmann, Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid..

7 James F. McGrath, "Review of Richard C. Carrier, Proving History."August 7, 2012, Exploring Our Matrix, blog, URL:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/08/review-of-richard-c-carrier-proving-history.html (accessed 10/30/15). 8 Ibid..

9 Ibid.

10 Tillich believed in not using the term "existence" (or exist) in relation to God. Contingent things exist, God is not a thing existing in creation, God is the basis of all that is, being itself. Hartshorne did get him to accept the use of the term exist if it was used metaphorically.
I*'ve written extensively about this on Metacrock's blog, see "God and Being Itself," just one ofr many.

Richard Carrier and The Bayes Craze

The Revd Thomas Bayes, 1701-1761

"The current discussion among Jesus-deniers and mythicists over whether probability in the form of Bayes’s Rule can be used in historical research is more than a little amusing. The current fad is largely the work of atheist blogger and debater Richard Carrier who despite having a PhD in ancient history likes to tout himself as a kind of natural science cum mathematics cum whachagot expert." --Hoffman, The New Oxonian

I've been missing the fun of message boards, those lovable wacy atheists using Bayes as a gimmick to afix the authority of science and mathematics to their subjective opinions. They can have the fun of insults on message boards, I am through with that. I must, however, through in my two cents because this is such a flagrant example of the Illusion of Technique.I allude to the concept by William Barrett in his book of the same name.[1] Technique is the basis of technological manipulation of reality, and the illusion of technique is the illusion that one is manipulating reality by manipulating the facts. The use of Bayes to replace discursive reasoning and so give the atheists and Jesus mythers a sense of victory is the gimmick of Richard Carrier in his book Proving History. I don't know who wrote th book ad but it betrays a certain arrogance:

Carrier's book add

This in-depth discussion of New Testament scholarship and the challenges of history as a whole proposes Bayes’s Theorem, which deals with probabilities under conditions of uncertainty, as a solution to the problem of establishing reliable historical criteria. The author demonstrates that valid historical methods—not only in the study of Christian origins but in any historical study—can be described by, and reduced to, the logic of Bayes’s Theorem. Conversely, he argues that any method that cannot be reduced to this theorem is invalid and should be abandoned.

"Carrier applies his philosophical and historical training to maximum effect in outlining a case for the use of Bayes’s Theorem in evaluating biblical claims. Even biblical scholars, who usually are not mathematically inclined, may never look at the ‘historical Jesus’ the same way again." -Dr. Hector Avalos, Professor of religious studies, Iowa State University, and author of , The End of Biblical Studies

The idea that "any method that cannot be reduced to this theorem is invalid and should be abandoned "may be the publisher's fantasy and not Carrier's idea at all but it is not only completely wrong but also a contradiction to the few historians who support using Bayes. More on that below. I also have to call attention to the blurb. Hector Avelos, my old sparing partner.[2] and poster on Loftus's Debunking Christianity blog, is an atheist activist who once tried to argue for closing down all of Biblical Scholarship. While the publisher Prometheus books is part of the atheist propaganda machine. That is the outfit that launched Loftus's career as an atheist activist when he shamed them itno publishing his book (he told me that story and I talked to his publisher--although they might not say "shamed").

Yet even though Carrier himself did not say that his own words are even more arrogant and strident.

Carrier in pdf

By Richard Carrier, Ph.D.
Visiting Lecturer for the Center for Inquiry Institute
Richmond, CA, USA
April 2012

"Several examinations of the methodologies employed in the study of Jesus have consistently found those methods invalid or defective. Which fact has resulted in the proliferation of endless different conclusions as to the nature of the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity..." What studies? What is the problem with different views? This is nothing more than an attempt to reduce all knowledge to scientism and to give atheism the illusion of scientific authority. The so called studies he talks about are atheist Jesus myth polemics.[read about this Center for Inquiry Institute].But he gets even more strident:

Every expert who has specialized in examining these methods and published a study of them has come to this conclusion: Stanley Porter,[2] Dale Allison,[3] Hector Avalos,[4] and almost a dozen others[5]; even Gerd Theissen, who describes the common conclusion, that “there are no reliable criteria for separating authentic from inauthentic Jesus tradition,”[6] attempted to resist it, but his own effort to rehabilitate the method ultimately led him to agree with that consensus, concluding that the criteria simply don’t work, and some other method is needed to replace them, something that involves more general evaluations of plausibility, although he confesses he is not certain how to formally do that....

To me De Lorean (back to the future car guy) did a study of air bags by examining all the data from scientific tests. I know Dale Allison did not have any data to study from scientific tests examining the validity of Jesus' historicity. He says every expert has come to the same conclusion I know that's just BS because Luke Timothy Johnson wrote a book debunking the Jesus seminar and used the methods they are against. They are against those methods because they negate their assertion about Jesus existing in history. Or again:

Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne, titled Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity(T & T Clark, 2012), and featuring such luminaries as Mark Goodacre and Morna Hooker, all coming to the same conclusion: the method of criteria is simply not logically viable. This leaves the field of Jesus studies with no valid method, and puts into question all consensus positions in the field, insofar as they have all been based, to one extent or another, on these logically invalid methods.

It's not as though no historians support him. There are a few, but only a handful. Neil Godfry).[3] talks about Aviezer Tucker‘s Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography(2004).[4]

That’s the subject of Aviezer Tucker‘s Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography (2004). Tucker’s interest is the relationship between the writing of history (historiography) and evidence (p. 8). It is written for audiences interested in philosophy, history, biblical criticism, the classics, comparative linguistics and evolutionary biology (p. 22).

Godfry goes on:

...the application of Bayes’ Theorem merely expresses in symbolic terms the way historians evaluate the nature of evidence and test hypotheses to explain evidence for certain events and artefacts. Some fearful critics have objected to the application of Bayes because they have never understood this fact...All Bayes’ theorem does is help us clarify our thinking. Bayes theorem is simply a symbolic way of expressing how we do our best thinking when seeking explanations for evidence or evaluating hypotheses against the evidence. The more complex the factors that need to be considered in addressing a problem the easier it is for us to overlook a critical point or draw invalid comparisons. Bayes’ helps us to clarify thinking about the most complex of issues, including those in the social sciences and history

There's the rube. It's doing what historians do anyway, but Dr. Carrier tells us what they do is useless unless they use Bayes, this is rather circular. If what they do is useless (ad above) and all Bayes does is clarify what they are doing then is just helping clarify the useless.

He gives an example

"The probability of the hypothesis that George Washington was the first president of the United States, given the massive amount of documentary evidence for it and background knowledge of the causal chains that led to this evidence, is almost 1. We are almost certain that George Washington was the first president.
Contrast this:

The probability of the hypothesis that Jesus was the founder of what became the Christian Church, given the massive documentary evidence for it and background knowledge of the causal chains that led to this evidence, is . . . ?

historians. (p. 96)

The Theorem

Tucker sets out Bayes’ Theorem thus:

Pr(H|E & B) = [Pr(E|H & B) x Pr(H|B)]:Pr(E|B)

Pr — the Probability of. . .

H — the Hypothesis, or any historical proposition about past events

E — the Evidence (often this means similarities between two or more independent sources)

B — the Background knowledge of theories, methods, other hypotheses

The vertical line | should be read as “given”. So the first part of the equation expresses:

The Probability of the Hypothesis being true given the evidence and background information.

Pr(H|E & B) translated into words:

The probability of the hypothesis that George Washington was the first president of the United States, given the massive amount of documentary evidence for it and background knowledge of the causal chains that led to this evidence, is almost 1. We are almost certain that George Washington was the first president.

Contrast this:

The probability of the hypothesis that Jesus was the founder of what became the Christian Church, given the massive documentary evidence for it and background knowledge of the causal chains that led to this evidence, is . . . ?

Unfortunately we have no background knowledge of the causal chains that led to the Gospels and writings of Paul. We only have other hypotheses (e.g. oral tradition) to fill in these gaps.

)[5]

Now h will have to prove that that's not enough. Atheists are always trying to hold believers to a standard to certain proof while they themselves never claim to meet such a standard. Bayes is certainly not going to give it to them.

Another example: early Christian studies example,

"If our evidence is Christian apologetic writings that claim to quote a letter from Jesus to the king of Edessa, it can be dismissed as a fabrication given all we know. If, however, we found the letter in scientifically verifiable archives of King Abgar of Edessa, it would be very surprising and lead to a serious rethink about Jesus and Christian origins."

I need this mathematical gimmick to tell me this? I have been aware of such letters and Gospels for 40 years and I've never given them credit. Those are not major sources for Jesus' historicity, we can do a lot better than that. For that matter we don't need a mathematician to notice that this same method that supposed to offer great objectivity and real historical proof is used to "prove" diametrically opposing views, Carrier says it disproves the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a man in history; William Lane Craig says it proves he rose from the dead.[5] Neither Craig nor Carrier is an idiot. They both have advanced degrees from major universities, neither of them is in the dark about how Bayes works. Why the difference? Because they makes different assumptions as befits their ideologies, their beliefs, their biases. The initial problem is that the assumptions they make are made in the absence of real data, Bayes wont work in that space.

So there are two problems here when it comes to trying to apply Bayes Theorem to history: (1) Carrier and Craig need to treat questions of what happened in the past as the same species of uncertainty as what may happen in the future and (2) historical questions are uncertain precisely because we don't have defined and certain data to feed into the equation. Bayes Theorem only works in cases where we can apply known information. So, in the example above, we know how often it rains in a year and we know when the weather forecast is and isn't correct. So by inputting this meaningful data, we can get a meaningful result out the other end of the equation....Bayes Theorem's application depends entirely on how precisely the parameters and values of our theoretical reconstruction of a real world approximate reality. With a historical question, Carrier is forced to think up probabilities for each parameter he put into the equation. This is a purely subjective process - he determines how likely or unlikely a parameter in the question is and then decides what value to give that parameter. So the result he gets at the end is purely a function of these subjective choices...[7]

. I'm not even to the good criticisms yet. Stay tuned for next time (Monday?)



Sources

1 William Barrett, The Illusion of Technique: The Search for Meaning in a Technological Civilization, New York:Anchor, 1979, no page indicated.

2 Avalos is author of the book The End of Biblical Studies he is a professor of religious studies and teaches at University of Iowa. I had my own series of exchanges with him, challenged him to formal debate and he would not do it; he tried to answer me once I think he wished he had not.
see (all on Metacrock) Atheist Thought Police, Response to Avelos," Jan 17, 2008

"Critique of Hector Avelos's End of Biblical Criticism,"Feb 10, 2008

see Metacrock's blog, "Christianity, Force For Liberation," April 8, 2010,URL:
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/04/christianity-force-for-liberation.html
I comment on Avelos's rhubarb with Helmutt Koester in "Hector Avelos Takes on Helmutt Koster," Metacrock's Blog, July 21, 20 10. http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/07/hector-avelos-takes-on-helmutt-koester.html

3 Neil Godfry,"real Historians do Bayes" Virdar, blog (July, 18, 2013) URL: http://vridar.org/2013/07/18/real-historians-do-bayes/ accessed 10, 29, 15.

4 Aviezer Tucker, Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of HistoriographyCambridge, London: Cambridge University Press (2004), no page indicated.

5 Godfry quoting Tucker, Ibid., in Tucker, 97.

6 Tim O'Neill, "what is your opinion on the use of Bayes Theorem to discover the best historical explanation for data we have as outlined by Richard Carrier?" Quora, blog, (17 Aug 2014) URL: https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opinion-on-the-use-of-Bayes-theorem-as-a-tool-to-discover-the-best-historical-explanation-for-the-data-we-have-as-outlined-by-Richard-Carrier

7 Ibid.

Page 2 of argument

Richard Carrier: Acts as Historical Fiction, or Atheist Fictional History?

An Article by James McGrath about an article by John Loftus (his blog 3/14/14), about a lecture by Carrier. I can't get the original lecture. Of course Carrier spits on the traditional view that Luke was a good historian. He doesn't stop there, he denies that Luke was even trying to be an kind of historian. According to McGrath, Luke was pretending to do historical research in his preface. Moreover, Carrier charges that Luke's method was sub standard.[1] According to McGrath's report of Carrier he argues that Luke's statement about using sources means he was claiming to slavishly follow them but then he did not.

Carrier assumes that Luke is a novel. He thinks there was a genre of ancinet novel and that these novels always included travel, miracles and divine revelation. Paul and Lydia are an ancient literary type the chaste couple reunited. This shows the Ignace of modern historians as novels didn't exist utnil early modern times:

Unlike poetry and drama, which go back thousands of years to works such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2000 B.C.) and the Greek play Oresteia (458 B.C.), the novel is a somewhat recent literary creation.  Lengthy fictional narratives written in prose had appeared sporadically before 1700; examples include the stories in Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron (1351-1353), the English romancer Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur (c. 1469), and Don Quixote (1605, 1615), by Miguel de Cervantes of Spain.  These early precursors aside, some scholars date the birth of the modern novel to the eighteenth century, specifically the publication of the English printer Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded (1740-1742), a long story recounting the trials of an English girl in a battle against a man trying to seduce her.[2]

For that matter there were no real historians in that day, not the sense that we know them. There was no academic world, no Ph.D. given in history. Historians were not thought of as social scientists. They didn't have the standards of documentation or scholarly caution that we have today. On that basis one could say there were no historians, if that's all we can all historian, modern academics. Even Tacitus was not a historian. There's no basis for the idea that Luke was not writing about true events to which he was witness. There's no reason to think he did not have a standard of using best evidence and no reason to think that he didn't critically make us of what he thought was authoritative and let go that which he thought was not.

According to McGrath Carrier charges Luke with "lying" that's how he explains the differences between Luke's account and Paul's accounts of the same episodes in Galatians. McGrath makes the point that Carrier calls this "revisionist history" but then how could it be that if it's a novel?[3]

His suggestion that Luke mistook “Gerazim” for “Galileans” seems unlikely. But he does present an interesting summary of the possible evidence for Luke drawing on Josephus, which some mainstream scholars have proposed. But once again, Carrier says that in reproducing Josephus, Luke is thus “not writing history,” which is rather bizarre. Drawing on a historian does not by any stretch of the imagination prove that someone is not trying to write history!!![4]

There are several other silly clams McGrath reports that I wont go into, For example Figures in Acts are designed to be parallel to Jesus, that's important for the Jesus myther aspect of Carrier's thought. I will focus on two issues, the over historicity of Acts and the issue that Luke copied Josephus. For a general defense of Luke as a historian in his Gospel see my Doxa page on Luke.

Luke as historian

One of the major aspects Luke's good historicity is his getting right the names of officils and the accurate title of their offices. Stephen Neil makes the point that Luke get's all of the titles correct in Acts, all the minor officials in every little localities, even titles which were thought previously to have been wrong archaeology has proven Luke right.[5] He also is right about the individuals who inhabited offices during the time of the book of Acts. Just to give a few examples. The pool of Bethseda in Luke where the angle "troubled the waters" for healing, and Jesus healed the lame man and told him to take up his bed and walk, has been discovered beneath the Church of ST. Anne. There is a pool at the bottom of a flight of stairs and an ancient fresco with a picture of an angel troubling the waters.[6]  In Romans 16:23 Paul sends greetings from Erastus the city treasurer. IN Corinth an inscription has been found which mentions Erastus [7] Harnack and others attest to Lukes accuracy in terms of the ship wreck on Malta, the flavor and historicity of the cities he speaks of the, the time period and all other verifiable elements of this nature. Neil thought that one of the most impressive aspects of Luke as an historian is that he always gets the titles write. Many of the titles of local officials which Luke provides us with were not validated until modern times.

"The writter of Acts knew the correct titles and used them with varying percision. In the words of Ramsey: 'the officials with whom Paul and his companions were brought into contact are those who would be there. Every person is found just where he ought to be; procounsuls in senatorial provences, asiarchs in Ephesus, strategoi in Philippi, politarchs in Thessolonica, magicians and soothsayers everywhere.' The Most remarkable of these titles is Politarch the ruler of the city used in Acts 17:6...previously this word had been completely unknown except for this passage in Acts. It has now been found in 19 inscriptions dating from he second century..." [8]

Neil argues that titles are the hardest things to get right, modern French writers never get English titles right, and this is something that would easily and surely betray an anachronism [9]. Historians of the modern day judge Luke a superb historian.It is true that Luke could have made up the events of Jesus' ministry and just used factual information to write the narrative. But it is absurd to think that Luke would traps all over Palestine to learn the little obscure titles of minor officials, because he is right about the exact people in authority at the time and the exact titles they held. This is clearly the work of an eye witness not merely a fictional writer. This is not some minor formality to get the things right, it's an indication he was really there on the trip. Now he could have just been on the trip at some other time and used the knowledge for his fictional writing, but anyone who argues that is struggling to preserve the argument against all likelihood. He says he was there, the fact that he was tallies with some of the things Paul says in Galatians so why not assume he was there?

 "Sir William Ramsay who devoted many fruitful years to the Archaeology of Asia Minor testifies to Lukes intimate and accurate acquaintance and the Greek East at the time with which his writings deal."[10] Ramsay began as a Tubingen liberal, believing Luke to be a second century production with no validity. By the end of his life he was so persuaded of the truth and validity of Luke that he gave up scholarship and became an Evangelist and apologist using arguments based upon the discoveries he had made.[11] It cannot be claimed that he was not an "objective" scholar, as he is one of the greats of the field. Dr. Henry J.Cadbury delivered the Lowell lectures in 1953 and produced a work on the Book of Acts in which he hailed Luke as a first rate historian.[12]

Did Luke Copy Josephus?

the Carrier article on Luke and Josephus can be found here.

Strange theory because it has Chrsitians making up the things Jo said about Jesus, but then it also has Luke copying them to use for Acts. That's possible but kind of cumbersome. There are not very many scholar who credit that kind of senerio. One of the most important sources the reader should consult is the Flavious Josephus homepage by J.G. Goldberg.[13] Goldberg has asked that people not quote him. I will summarize a few things but I recommend highly that the reader to go his pages and read them. There he sets all the passage side by side, Luke and Jo and makes helpful comments about them. Golberg does say that Luke is concerned with embedding Jesus in a historical context, that would put him at odds with Carrier who thinks he was writing fiction. Oddly enough he thinks that Luke quoting a historian in order to write fiction. Add to this that Luke apparently did travel to all the places he writs about for the missionary journeys. So he copied a historian so he would write a fictitious account of a journey he actually made himself?

Victor Repport has a gine article which summarizes arguments of Tim McGrew on Carrier's arguments about Luke and Josephus.[14] McGrew jokes that the parallels are so general he wonders why he left out that both mention Rome.

The list of “story parallels” is even worse, since in many cases it involves torturing the notion of a parallel. Just run through the list and note some of the (non)parallels that he either vastly overrates or twists ’round:

* In Josephus, the census under Quirinius is the beginning of something bad. In Luke, it isn’t. Therefore, this is a parallel where Luke “transvalues” the message of the census, changing “bad” into “good.”

(Um, ... standards ...?)

* Josephus says that there were many men who led revolts, and he names three prominent ones. Luke has passing references to three persons with the same names, though it is not clear that Luke’s “Theudas” is the same as Josephus’s. One of the men is called “the Egyptian” by both Josephus and Luke; Luke links him with the sicarii, whereas Josephus does not. Therefore, Luke was copying from Josephus.

(The argument that this must be copying because there were thousands of Egyptians in Palestine at the time is beyond ridiculous. It would work equally well against two independent references to Jimmy the Greek. (“How many millions of Greeks,” etc.))

* Luke and Josephus both recount the death of Agrippa I in some detail, speaking of his brilliant robe, his acceptance of adulation as a God, and his immediate demise. There are also some details that differ in the two stories. Therefore, Luke must have borrowed it from Josephus.

(It couldn’t just be a notorious fact? Why not?)

* Josephus mentions a rumor that there was an incestuous relationship between Agrippa II and Bernice; Luke does not. Therefore, Luke is inspired by Josephus and intends the entire scene in Acts 25 as comic sarcasm.

(Does it seem like sarcasm? Can it by any legitimate stretch of the imagination be read that way?)

* Josephus reports that Drusilla abandoned her husband for Felix. Luke (Acts 24) portrays Paul as speaking to Felix about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix becomes uncomfortable. Therefore, Luke must be using Josephus.[15

This is just the kind of thing I would expect form the mythers. Some of their parallels (Carrier's) are hilarious. Here's a priceless one Reppert mentions:

* "Josephus portrays Felix as sending priests, “excellent men,” to Rome for trial on petty charges. Luke portrays Paul as demanding to be sent to Rome. So perhaps Luke was using Josephus as a model."

Reppert adds:

(Huh?)

Hey, it makes perfect sense to me, but then I've been posting on CARM since 1998.

Sources

all online sources accessed 3/16/14.

[1] Jame McGrath, "Richard Carrier on Acts as Historical Fiction." Exploring our Matrix, blog on Pathos: Progressive Christian Channel. March 13, (2014) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/03/richard-carrier-on-acts-as-historical-fiction.html
[2] Mark Canada, "Introduction to the novel." Eng.343: The American Novel. educational resource on line http://www2.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/markport/lit/amnovel/fall2002/01intro.htm
this is a class syllabus-type material Mark Canada is professor at University of North Carolina at Pembroke.
[3] McGrath, Op cit.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Stephen Neil, The Interpriation of the New Testament:1861-1961, London: Oxford Univesity press, 1964, 143.
[6] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are they Reliable? Jefferson, Grand Rapids, Cambridge England: Published Jointly in USA W.B Eerdmans Publishing Company, by 1943, 1981 94
[7] Ibid. 95
[8] Stephen Neil,Op. Cit, 143.
[8]  Ibid.,147
[10] Ibid., 90
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] J.G. Goldberg, "New Testament Parallels to the Works of Josephus," The Falvious Josephus Home page http://www.josephus.org/ntparallels.htm
[14] Victory Repport, "Tim McGrew on Carrier's Treatment of Luke and Jospheus," Dangerous Idea
blog http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2010/08/tim-mcgrew-on-carriers-treatment-of.html
McGrew is professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University.
[15] Ibid.

Atheists Attempt to Infur God's Non Existence From the Nature of Naturalism

An atheist on CARM makes this argument. He doesn't like me to quote him so I wont include his name. It's a public record, so I will quote it but I wont embrace him.

Atheist:

Through our observations of the cosmos we see that we are but one planet in a solar system of 8 planets is part of a larger galaxy which is in turn just one of billions of such galaxies. As well as all that there are some models of theoretical physics that point towards multiple universes! So why would a universe creating deity be interested in our small insignificant planet?

Moreover we know from biology that it took millions of years for life to develop by well understood mechanisms of evolutionary biology that the bodies that we currently have are just trade offs for certain abilities in terms of biology. So it seems that if a deity does exist and this isn't plausible from the argument above that he doesn't care about his creation at best as there are some serious design flaws in the human body. In terms of being "designed" to live long and just to survive the deity seems to care about beetles a great deal.

So do you still believe in a deity that cares about you personally?

Meta: This kind of argument has been made many times. James Still used to make it on sec web quite a lot. Richard Carrier has been known to make it. The argument is fraught with several bad assumptions that nullify it. One such assumption, probably the major one, is that it assumes we know what a universe designed by a caring God would look like. This is the same mistake the classical design argument makes. It assumes we know what a designed universe looks like with no inverse we know to have been designed to compare to it. This atheist is making the same mistake, he just makes it as a back up to his atheist views rather than as an argument for the existence f God.

Another perilous assumption made is that he pretends to know what God cares about. I thnk we have to assume that God cares about us to maintain a Christian tradition but that doesn't mean that we can assume that God would attach the same kinds of emotional feelings to al species. Why do you think we need to assume that we are the only intelligent beings God has created or that he created the whole thing for just us? why can't we assume that God set the principle of evolution in motion with the creation of sub atomic particles and allowed it to run as it would, creating a multiverse and perhaps giving it bias for bearing life.

God created the proceedings in such a way that it was possible for a complex creature who is capable of love to be produced in the universe over time as a result of evolution. Here we are. What's the big deal? The atheist assumes that caring = perfection That's a false assumption. Design flaws are not indications of not caring. Extinction is the natural process. That makes no more sense as an argument against God than dose arguing that death itself is an argument God. Extinction is not a moral issue, until humanity goes extinct it has not yet touched, to our knowledge, a species capable of understanding it. He's assuming a standard of concern for every species that he has no right to assume. God apparently values growth, change, progression and evolution too. The purpose of life seems to be to learn, to grow, to adapt, to progress. Allowing a species to go existinct, or making a huge universe with the possibility of many intelligent species are not any more indicative of not caring than is allowing one's child to make his own decisions and learn.

Then he makes the protestation that He has no biases and he's not making assumptions. Not making assumptions! really? He's the first totally objective and completely unbiased human in hsitory. To this he says he's just using empirical scinece to tell us the nature of the universe, and that nature excludes a caring creator. That seems to him like a defense but in reality he's only just admitted to my point about the design argument. As for the idea that he can use science objectively and just infer from the nature of things the nature of God's caring (which is that mistake I just mentioned) I said:

Meta:I can use empirical scinece all day and not try to draw conclusions about the original of the world from the way it looks on the surface. The mistake that we make in doing this is to say "I know what design looks like" since we have never seen a world that we know is or is not designed we don't know what it looks like. You make that very assumptions. you say "I know what the created world of a caring God looks like" you can't determine that based upon looking at the world that's like trying to find design based upon looking at the world with no undersigned to look at.

I also argue that

I have explained the reason that we live in a universe where God is not immediately obvious. I have expalined this in terms of the need to search for truth through personal understanding of our existential situation (understand "existential" in the Sartean and Kierkegaardian sense: private subjective reflection upon our own individual existences).

Until you answer that the look of the universe and the way its natural processes function is quite irrelevant. All you are doing is a bait and switch. you are answering the wrong questions and the pretending they are the right ones. This is encapsulated in my argument I call Soteriolgical Drama:

Basic assumptions

There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.

(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.


The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.


(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.

That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.

(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.

The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.

The argument would look like this:


(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.

(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).

(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices

(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.


This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.

This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:


(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultiamte goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.

(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us

(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.

(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.


In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.

This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.

See the full argument where I present objections and answer them. See also my corollary Twelve Angry Stereotypes where I answer parodies of my argument made by atheists.

This explains why we have a world that doesn't look like it was created by a caring God. Yet the argument also ignores numerous reasons to interpret caring as designed into the chaos. For example the human ability to love. It's not as though atheists don't sell that short. Now to this he answered that I accuse him of making assumptions yet I'm making assumptions to. In fact I even clealry label part of my argument "assumptions." (see above). Yes, we can't avoid making assumptions of cousre. So I do make them. The trick is to make good assumptions not bad one's His assumptions are based upon the desire to show God up, mine are based upon what I feel is given me and required of the Christian tradition. I think assumptions can be defended as logical implications of the tradition itself, and based upon the character of Christ.

That's my most basic assumption that Christ behaved in a matter that illustrates for us God's true character.