What do you think?
Rate this book
Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
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.
Writing with thoroughness and clarity, the author explains Bayes’s Theorem in terms that are easily understandable to professional historians and laypeople alike, employing nothing more than well-known primary school math. He then explores precisely how the theorem can be applied to history and addresses numerous challenges to and criticisms of its use in testing or justifying the conclusions that historians make about the important persons and events of the past. The traditional and established methods of historians are analyzed using the theorem, as well as all the major "historicity criteria" employed in the latest quest to establish the historicity of Jesus. The author demonstrates not only the deficiencies of these approaches but also ways to rehabilitate them using Bayes’s Theorem.
Anyone with an interest in historical methods, how historical knowledge can be justified, new applications of Bayes’s Theorem, or the study of the historical Jesus will find this book to be essential reading.
Writing with thoroughness and clarity, the author explains Bayes’s Theorem in terms that are easily understandable to professional historians and laypeople alike, employing nothing more than well-known primary school math. He then explores precisely how the theorem can be applied to history and addresses numerous challenges to and criticisms of its use in testing or justifying the conclusions that historians make about the important persons and events of the past. The traditional and established methods of historians are analyzed using the theorem, as well as all the major "historicity criteria" employed in the latest quest to establish the historicity of Jesus. The author demonstrates not only the deficiencies of these approaches but also ways to rehabilitate them using Bayes’s Theorem.
Anyone with an interest in historical methods, how historical knowledge can be justified, new applications of Bayes’s Theorem, or the study of the historical Jesus will find this book to be essential reading.
345 pages, Audible Audio
First published January 1, 2012
97 people are currently reading
596 people want to read
About the author
Richard C. Carrier
18 books326 followersRichard Cevantis Carrier is an American historian, published philosopher, and prominent defender of the American freethought movement. He is well known for his writings on Internet Infidels, otherwise known as the Secular Web, where he served as Editor-in-Chief for several years. As an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, he has published articles in books, journals and magazines, and also features on the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus. He currently contributes to The God Contention, a web site comparing and contrasting various worldviews.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
January 10, 2023
Richard Carrier did his Ph.D. work at Columbia. He uses his specialization of ancient history to bring the methodology of historical analysis to the layman. As his topic he looks at the "historical Jesus".
The book explains the various inconsistencies of the actual Bible itself and teaches the reader the basics of the Bayes Theorem. This is a theory that describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event. I lack the tools to put the equation into GR but it is finely explained in this book.
It is a fascinating look at the historical methods that are applied to every other field of history, being applied to the field of the study of Jesus and the events of the New Testament.
While this is fascinating, the layperson is likely to find this book hideously dull as it is a description of the historical methodology used and why the science behind it makes sense. Not the quickest or most "fun" read, but one that is rather important, especially when understanding how the normal historical methods are applied to Christianity, then the "historical Jesus" becomes far more doubtful.
The book explains the various inconsistencies of the actual Bible itself and teaches the reader the basics of the Bayes Theorem. This is a theory that describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event. I lack the tools to put the equation into GR but it is finely explained in this book.
It is a fascinating look at the historical methods that are applied to every other field of history, being applied to the field of the study of Jesus and the events of the New Testament.
While this is fascinating, the layperson is likely to find this book hideously dull as it is a description of the historical methodology used and why the science behind it makes sense. Not the quickest or most "fun" read, but one that is rather important, especially when understanding how the normal historical methods are applied to Christianity, then the "historical Jesus" becomes far more doubtful.
November 12, 2020
Moved to gwern.net.
May 16, 2013
History is not unlike science, an observation made by Richard Carrier, the author of Proving History - and when you think about it, this idea makes a lot of sense. They both involve weighing up evidence, testing hypotheses and drawing up conclusions. In fact arguably cosmology is, in effect history rather than science, as it involves looking into the past and it is rarely possible to subject it to experiment or repeat it to see what happens.
That being the case, to do history properly, historians really ought to be using some of the tools available to scientists, but that they tend to ignore, in part because history has been around longer, but primarily, I suspect, because most historians have neither the training nor the inclination to dip their toes into mathematics. But the message of Proving History, written by a historian, is 'Come on in, guys, the water is lovely!' Carrier doesn't mention it, but there is a precedent here. Until recently biologists were basically natural historians. They merely observed and classified - they were doing Rutherford's 'stamp collecting' - they too avoided mathematics with fear and loathing. Now, though, some branches of biology make heavy use of maths, and have been transformed as a result. Biologists have learned to love numbers and a new breed of historians (it's probably too late for the old brigade) can and must too.
The tools Richard Carrier employs are logic and Bayes' Theorem. The logic is simple enough (though it is surprising how many examples Carrier gives where historians have drawn illogical conclusions). Bayes' Theorem is a little harder to get your head around. This statistical method is something I cover at some length in Dice World, because it is arguably one of the most powerful tools we have for predicting the future. What I didn't really full absorb is that it is also a great way of weighing up historical evidence and hypotheses. (It's odd, now I think of it, that I didn't do this, as the main example I give to demonstrate Bayes is deducing whether or not my dog is a golden retriever, which is, in effect, history, rather than future gazing.)
What Bayes' Theorem does is allow you to work out the probability of something being true with limited information, and modified by secondary evidence. As mathematics goes, it is actually very simple - a doddle compared with calculus, for instance - but for some reason, the way it is traditionally described makes it really hard to grasp, so one essential in selling the value of Bayes to historians is making your description simple. Unfortunately this is where Carrier falls down. If anything he makes Bayes' theorem sound more complicated than it is.
There are a couple of other problems with the book. I'm not quite sure what the target audience is, but the book is far to dry and dull to be anything but an academic text. This is a real shame, as the message is one that everyone should be interested in - here is a tool that could transform the way we assess our historical data, that could transform history. He perhaps should have had a co-author to make the text more approachable. It's not that the content is too complex, just that the way it is put across is often difficult to absorb.
The other problem is that Carrier is setting up this method primarily to be ready for his second book, in which he will dispute the historical reality of Jesus. This being the case, most of the examples in the book are from the Bible. I think this is a mistake, because this approach is so powerful it ought to have been set out in general historical terms in book 1 before he got onto his 'historicity of Jesus' theme in book 2. I think the subject matter will put some people off, who would otherwise benefit greatly from the underlying theme.
So if you are interested in the nature of history and how it can be improved, it is worth wading through the rhetoric to get to the juicy bits. It's a shame there aren't more examples, as the writing comes to life when dealing with specifics - it is only when it is being generic, which is much of the book, that it is hard going. If you are interested in Christian history, well and good - but if you aren't, again I would urge you not to be put off because the underlying approach applies to all of history and is far too good to waste.
That being the case, to do history properly, historians really ought to be using some of the tools available to scientists, but that they tend to ignore, in part because history has been around longer, but primarily, I suspect, because most historians have neither the training nor the inclination to dip their toes into mathematics. But the message of Proving History, written by a historian, is 'Come on in, guys, the water is lovely!' Carrier doesn't mention it, but there is a precedent here. Until recently biologists were basically natural historians. They merely observed and classified - they were doing Rutherford's 'stamp collecting' - they too avoided mathematics with fear and loathing. Now, though, some branches of biology make heavy use of maths, and have been transformed as a result. Biologists have learned to love numbers and a new breed of historians (it's probably too late for the old brigade) can and must too.
The tools Richard Carrier employs are logic and Bayes' Theorem. The logic is simple enough (though it is surprising how many examples Carrier gives where historians have drawn illogical conclusions). Bayes' Theorem is a little harder to get your head around. This statistical method is something I cover at some length in Dice World, because it is arguably one of the most powerful tools we have for predicting the future. What I didn't really full absorb is that it is also a great way of weighing up historical evidence and hypotheses. (It's odd, now I think of it, that I didn't do this, as the main example I give to demonstrate Bayes is deducing whether or not my dog is a golden retriever, which is, in effect, history, rather than future gazing.)
What Bayes' Theorem does is allow you to work out the probability of something being true with limited information, and modified by secondary evidence. As mathematics goes, it is actually very simple - a doddle compared with calculus, for instance - but for some reason, the way it is traditionally described makes it really hard to grasp, so one essential in selling the value of Bayes to historians is making your description simple. Unfortunately this is where Carrier falls down. If anything he makes Bayes' theorem sound more complicated than it is.
There are a couple of other problems with the book. I'm not quite sure what the target audience is, but the book is far to dry and dull to be anything but an academic text. This is a real shame, as the message is one that everyone should be interested in - here is a tool that could transform the way we assess our historical data, that could transform history. He perhaps should have had a co-author to make the text more approachable. It's not that the content is too complex, just that the way it is put across is often difficult to absorb.
The other problem is that Carrier is setting up this method primarily to be ready for his second book, in which he will dispute the historical reality of Jesus. This being the case, most of the examples in the book are from the Bible. I think this is a mistake, because this approach is so powerful it ought to have been set out in general historical terms in book 1 before he got onto his 'historicity of Jesus' theme in book 2. I think the subject matter will put some people off, who would otherwise benefit greatly from the underlying theme.
So if you are interested in the nature of history and how it can be improved, it is worth wading through the rhetoric to get to the juicy bits. It's a shame there aren't more examples, as the writing comes to life when dealing with specifics - it is only when it is being generic, which is much of the book, that it is hard going. If you are interested in Christian history, well and good - but if you aren't, again I would urge you not to be put off because the underlying approach applies to all of history and is far too good to waste.
January 4, 2013
If you're looking for a case against the historical Jesus, just read David Fitzgerald's "Nailed". It's much the same, but without the math.
October 9, 2013
"...I'll be using it to model how to do determine the most likely explanation of a body of evidence" was an explanation given by Richard Carrier in his lecture Bayes Theorem: Key to the Universe at the beginning of his Skepticon 4 presentation. So when I heard Carrier was doing a book on the subject in relation to Historical Jesus methodology, I was excited to read and see what he had to say on this. To put succinctly, Carrier attempts to put forth two main thesis' with this book being that (1) all historical research can be summed up with the use and application of Bayes' Theorem (BT) and (2) the "criteria" approach to the historical Jesus are either restatements of BT and thus should be replaced by it or are woefully inadequate in giving is a picture of the things Jesus really did in the past and instead are assumed to be such due to the exclusion of inauthentic material, thus leaving what is deemed "authentic." Also to keep in mind is that this book is the first volume in a two part series that Carrier is doing on the historical Jesus.
The book begins outlining a problem found within Jesus studies regarding the biblical scholar's endeavor to reconstruct the historical Jesus. In fact this problem is very reminiscent to that of John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant wherein he expresses that the various portraits of Jesus within the scholastic community is an "academic embarrassment" and must be done away with by applying objective historical methodology and a critical examination of the sources. In the following chapter Carrier gives the context of the frames of references wherein he talks about how history requires expertise by appealing to The Axioms of Historical Method and The Twelve Rules of Historical Method as he calls them. In these axioms and rules he explicitly outlines them in a way to conform to BT as a primary component of them. He then moves on with a great introduction of BT that may in fact be considered an expansion of Carrier's lecture quoted above. He gives various helpful references to those curious about the application, purpose and even forms BT takes both in online publications and in various helpful scholastic publications. He squeezes out the technical application of BT and thus explains to all of us how BT can be used to gauge various probability arguments in history by giving a number of examples. The first being that of the Gospel's tale about the 3 hour darkness of the sun and then decides to show that the probability of the claim being true in modernity are different from the claim being true in ancient times. Chapter 4 is the reason I actually bought the book as it teases out a lot of the problems of historical Jesus methodology summed up mostly as criteria. I was much more interested in the detail of the critiques rather than the actual content of whether or not he has demonstrated his thesis. He tackles various criteria such as embarrassment, coherence, dissimilarity and many more that more or less relies on the failings of form criticism and historical positivist interpretations of the historical Jesus. But more to it as he shows that in some cases, these criteria's are just a restatement of BT or BT does the job the criteria doesn't (even though it is claimed that it does do these things) and as a result, historians who deal with these criteria should use BT instead. The final chapter is something I skipped as it appears from the outset to contain responses to criticism and critique's of the use of BT in history for which Carrier has responded to. The reason why I skipped this chapter is because this portion of the book was not meant to be read by me, but read by people who have contention with his views (that and my original reason for purchasing the book was to look for issues in Jesus methodology and the epistemology of historiographical methodology).
My thoughts on the book and the validity of the thesis put forth, I must say that I am not exactly qualified to speak on validity of Carrier's thesis, his finding or his historiographic approach, but from what I will say is that the book is readable and understandable. I could tell that at times when Carrier was having issues breaking down the mechanics of BT, but it was still worthwhile to see. I did very much enjoy his criticism of the criteria approach and share much of his own sentiments of how these methods such as embarrassment and dissimilarity either do not give us a portrait of Jesus to work with or are actually completely incoherent because it requires using history in an ass backwards way by removing someone from their historical context. In many way's he did in fact show that his thesis was valid to me or at the very least, worth serious consideration. One of the biggest things worth mentioning are the way in which Carrier organizes his notes and the notes are probably the most valuable part of the book; while this may be a given in any nonfiction work, but his was of particular help due to the fact that I gained over at least 20 more books to read on this subject and it is a rarity when I find myself consistently looking at the notes.
With all of these things put forward there were a few issues with the work as there always is. I noticed while reading through it there were a few typos and one instance of a word being repeated again. For some reason, this is always present for when I read an author who is used to writing blogs. Another issue is more or less how Carrier inserts this notion about how BT only makes sense of this or that only BT can give is a picture of that. This seems to rely on absolutist declarations about the validity, applicability and fallibility of a given method (or in this case, theorem). As a result, Carrier appears to reduce the way in which BT may end up exceeding its limit and thus would need to be replaced or modified by another theorem for which compensates for its inadequacies. One issue is that I consider to be the failing of the book is that there seems to be no mention whatsoever of the criteria's reliance on form criticism and by extent, Modernism. Thus a discussion that could have put things into context for the issues surrounding these criteria overall were glossed over and not discussed. Thus a discussion about how the criteria violates several things we know about memory theory and the staunch ignorance of post-modernist interpretations of history are the two big failings of the criteria in my eyes and something Carrier should have mentioned in his critique but did not. Another thing I had an issue with is there being no bibliography and I know it's not that big of a deal for most, but for me I like the idea of going through a books references one by one and determining by title, which would be the most interesting to read on my list.
Overall, the book is well worth it and worthwhile for those interested in BT and historical Jesus methodology.
The book begins outlining a problem found within Jesus studies regarding the biblical scholar's endeavor to reconstruct the historical Jesus. In fact this problem is very reminiscent to that of John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant wherein he expresses that the various portraits of Jesus within the scholastic community is an "academic embarrassment" and must be done away with by applying objective historical methodology and a critical examination of the sources. In the following chapter Carrier gives the context of the frames of references wherein he talks about how history requires expertise by appealing to The Axioms of Historical Method and The Twelve Rules of Historical Method as he calls them. In these axioms and rules he explicitly outlines them in a way to conform to BT as a primary component of them. He then moves on with a great introduction of BT that may in fact be considered an expansion of Carrier's lecture quoted above. He gives various helpful references to those curious about the application, purpose and even forms BT takes both in online publications and in various helpful scholastic publications. He squeezes out the technical application of BT and thus explains to all of us how BT can be used to gauge various probability arguments in history by giving a number of examples. The first being that of the Gospel's tale about the 3 hour darkness of the sun and then decides to show that the probability of the claim being true in modernity are different from the claim being true in ancient times. Chapter 4 is the reason I actually bought the book as it teases out a lot of the problems of historical Jesus methodology summed up mostly as criteria. I was much more interested in the detail of the critiques rather than the actual content of whether or not he has demonstrated his thesis. He tackles various criteria such as embarrassment, coherence, dissimilarity and many more that more or less relies on the failings of form criticism and historical positivist interpretations of the historical Jesus. But more to it as he shows that in some cases, these criteria's are just a restatement of BT or BT does the job the criteria doesn't (even though it is claimed that it does do these things) and as a result, historians who deal with these criteria should use BT instead. The final chapter is something I skipped as it appears from the outset to contain responses to criticism and critique's of the use of BT in history for which Carrier has responded to. The reason why I skipped this chapter is because this portion of the book was not meant to be read by me, but read by people who have contention with his views (that and my original reason for purchasing the book was to look for issues in Jesus methodology and the epistemology of historiographical methodology).
My thoughts on the book and the validity of the thesis put forth, I must say that I am not exactly qualified to speak on validity of Carrier's thesis, his finding or his historiographic approach, but from what I will say is that the book is readable and understandable. I could tell that at times when Carrier was having issues breaking down the mechanics of BT, but it was still worthwhile to see. I did very much enjoy his criticism of the criteria approach and share much of his own sentiments of how these methods such as embarrassment and dissimilarity either do not give us a portrait of Jesus to work with or are actually completely incoherent because it requires using history in an ass backwards way by removing someone from their historical context. In many way's he did in fact show that his thesis was valid to me or at the very least, worth serious consideration. One of the biggest things worth mentioning are the way in which Carrier organizes his notes and the notes are probably the most valuable part of the book; while this may be a given in any nonfiction work, but his was of particular help due to the fact that I gained over at least 20 more books to read on this subject and it is a rarity when I find myself consistently looking at the notes.
With all of these things put forward there were a few issues with the work as there always is. I noticed while reading through it there were a few typos and one instance of a word being repeated again. For some reason, this is always present for when I read an author who is used to writing blogs. Another issue is more or less how Carrier inserts this notion about how BT only makes sense of this or that only BT can give is a picture of that. This seems to rely on absolutist declarations about the validity, applicability and fallibility of a given method (or in this case, theorem). As a result, Carrier appears to reduce the way in which BT may end up exceeding its limit and thus would need to be replaced or modified by another theorem for which compensates for its inadequacies. One issue is that I consider to be the failing of the book is that there seems to be no mention whatsoever of the criteria's reliance on form criticism and by extent, Modernism. Thus a discussion that could have put things into context for the issues surrounding these criteria overall were glossed over and not discussed. Thus a discussion about how the criteria violates several things we know about memory theory and the staunch ignorance of post-modernist interpretations of history are the two big failings of the criteria in my eyes and something Carrier should have mentioned in his critique but did not. Another thing I had an issue with is there being no bibliography and I know it's not that big of a deal for most, but for me I like the idea of going through a books references one by one and determining by title, which would be the most interesting to read on my list.
Overall, the book is well worth it and worthwhile for those interested in BT and historical Jesus methodology.
June 14, 2020
The beginning was a good explanation of Bayes theorem and its usefulness in history and such fields. Then it became very much about equations - quite mental when you're listening to it instead of reading. In the end he made a nice controversial claim that all Bayesianists are frequentists and vice versa, brave man in any case!
June 14, 2021
I think the title of this work is misleading - in part. It certainly does cover Bayes' Theorem, but the quest for the Historical Jesus is really nothing more than a tease. The bulk of the book discusses, in excruciating and verbose detail, the definition and process of Bayes' Theorem.
Carrier admits that the book is about understanding Bayes relative to historical research and cautions that it is mathematical, but that he will review the theorem as it concerns the historian. He then proceeds to inundate us with an avalanche of statistical procedure in the most repetitious manner.
He also has this quirk of constantly interrupting his text with parenthetical notes on how what he is now discussing will be discussed in later chapters. In later chapters he tells us how he told us about this fact in an earlier chapter.
In the beginning he suggests the reader go to either Wikipedia or to Eliezer Yudkowsky's website for the best explanations of Bayes' Theorem. And he was right. You can stop reading this book - go to Yudkowsky and you will find a clear and understandable explanation. Carrier could lean a lot from him.
His references to Jesus' historicity are spun around references from the New Testament and how they can be refuted by what they DON'T tell us, or how we can dismiss or accept the facts by virtue of other suppositions. Common sense tells us that historical witnesses need to be vetted and are only as reliable as the context and origin of the material being referenced. One does not need Bayes to question primary source material.
Personally - I think Carrier is full of himself and has a desperate need for others to recognize his illuminating intelligence.
I'll take a pass on Volume II.
Carrier admits that the book is about understanding Bayes relative to historical research and cautions that it is mathematical, but that he will review the theorem as it concerns the historian. He then proceeds to inundate us with an avalanche of statistical procedure in the most repetitious manner.
He also has this quirk of constantly interrupting his text with parenthetical notes on how what he is now discussing will be discussed in later chapters. In later chapters he tells us how he told us about this fact in an earlier chapter.
In the beginning he suggests the reader go to either Wikipedia or to Eliezer Yudkowsky's website for the best explanations of Bayes' Theorem. And he was right. You can stop reading this book - go to Yudkowsky and you will find a clear and understandable explanation. Carrier could lean a lot from him.
His references to Jesus' historicity are spun around references from the New Testament and how they can be refuted by what they DON'T tell us, or how we can dismiss or accept the facts by virtue of other suppositions. Common sense tells us that historical witnesses need to be vetted and are only as reliable as the context and origin of the material being referenced. One does not need Bayes to question primary source material.
Personally - I think Carrier is full of himself and has a desperate need for others to recognize his illuminating intelligence.
I'll take a pass on Volume II.
May 27, 2024
A “PRELUDE” TO STUDYING THE HISTORICAL JESUS SKEPTICALLY
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born 1969) wrote in the Preface to this 2012 book, “This book is the first of two volumes examining a daring question: whether there is a case to be made that Jesus never really existed as a historical person. The alternative is that Jesus originated as a mythical character in tales symbolically narrating the salvific acts of a cosmic being who never walked the earth (and probably never really existed at all). Later, according to theory, this myth was mistaken for history… and then embellished over time. The present book… begins the inquiry by resolving the central problem of method: HOW does one test a claim like that?... the aim here is to develop a formal historical method for approaching this (or any other) debate, which will produce as objectively credible a conclusion as any honest historian can reach. One need merely plug all the evidence into that method to get a result. That’s a bold claim, I know; but the purpose of this book is to convince you … to implement the method I propose. All I ask is that you give my argument a fair hearing.” (Pg. 7)
He reveals, “My continued work on the question has now culminated in over forty philanthropists (some of them Christians) donating a collective total of $20,000 for Atheists United, a major American educational charity, to support my research and writing of a series of books, in the hopes of giving both laypeople AND experts a serious evaluation of the evidence they can use to decide who is more probably right… By the requirements of my grant, I am writing as much for my benefactors as my fellow scholars.” (Pg. 8-9)
He acknowledges. “the burden of proof clearly falls on anyone who would challenge an existing consensus, despite repeated attempts to deny this. For example, in the matter of whether Jesus actually existed as a historical person, historicists have already met the burden of evidence to produce a consensus of qualified experts. So the deniers of historicity must overcome that burden with their own… there is certainly prima facie evidence for a historical Jesus… This usually means that a strong consensus of experts entails a high prior probability the consensus theory is true. Yet occasionally this is not so. I believe there is ample reason to conclude that the consensus is not reliable in the story of the historical Jesus and therefore cannot be appealed to as evidence for a conclusion.” (Pg. 30)
He explains, “Bayes’s Theorem is a logical formula that deals with cases of empirical ambiguity, calculating how confident we can be in any particular conclusion, given what we know at the time.” (Pg. 45) Later, he adds, “BT simply describes… ideal reasoning about empirical probabilities… And whether we’re correct or not, or aware of it or not, we always have beliefs about what those relative probabilities are… This means if you don’t follow BT, even intuitively, then you are not behaving rationally. You will be entertaining contradictory beliefs. And since BT describes the best way to reason, you will always reason better… when you follow BT, than when you just do the same thing intuitively.” (Pg. 65)
He admits, “Years ago I described two historical methods as defining the best that historians have deployed: The ‘Argument to the Best Explanation (ABE) and the Argument from Evidence (AFE)… Yet I have since discovered that everything I had argued can be better frames in Bayesian terms, especially since neither the ABE nor the AFE solves the problems I now identify as plaguing every historical method: establishing logical validity and epistemic sufficiency; in other words, why should the conclusion of these arguments be deemed logically valid and when is the evidence enough to warrant belief in the conclusion?” (Pg. 97)
He points out, “we simply DON’T KNOW much of what went on in second-temple Judaism and the early church. To the contrary, we know early Christianity and Judaism were wildly diverse and that we have scarce to no data about all the many different communities we know were flourishing at the time.” (Pg. 123) He argues, “it’s simply not true that, as Marcus Borg claims, ‘if a saying or story appears at least twice in traditions that are early and independent of each other, that is a very good reason for thinking that the gist of it goes back to Jesus.’ Because it is an equally good reason for thinking that the gist of it goes back to an originating myth… or an early storyteller’s innovation.” (Pg. 173-174)
He notes, “Applying BT to the specific question of whether some person, place, or event actually existed or not is merely a matter of ascertaining the prior and consequent probabilities. What is the prior probability that Jesus actually existed? What is the prior probability that he didn’t? How likely is the evidence we have if he did exist? How likely is the evidence we have if he didn’t?... at first glance it seems surely ‘Jesus existed’ would win out as the most probable hypothesis on BT… on second glance, that conclusion is not so obvious, and might even be wrong.” (Pg. 204)
He observes, “the odds of life forming by chance are NOT the odds of life forming by chance specifically here on earth, but the odds of life forming by chance on SOME planet SOMEWHERE in the whole of the known universe. Because, obviously, wherever that happens to be will become ‘specifically here’ for whoever ends up evolving on that planet to think about it.” (Pg. 227)
He acknowledges at his conclusion, “Some critics object that deriving conclusions about what happened in the past by using probabilistic reasoning about how surviving evidence came about is impossible, because the specific probabilities that any actual item of evidence would survive… are astronomically small… Some critics object to so many problems arise in the task of assigning prior probabilities that the endeavor should seem hopeless… Some critics also object to the use of hypothetical frequencies rather than sticking to hard data… Perhaps other objections will be imagined. But given the arguments of this and previous chapters, I doubt any will carry force. The conclusion seems inescapable to me. Historians should be Bayesians.” (Pg. 281-282)
While this volume leaves one eagerly waiting for the APPLICATION of BT to “specifics,” this volume will be of some interest to those (particularly of a skeptical turn of mind) studying the historical Jesus.
Richard Cevantis Carrier (born 1969) wrote in the Preface to this 2012 book, “This book is the first of two volumes examining a daring question: whether there is a case to be made that Jesus never really existed as a historical person. The alternative is that Jesus originated as a mythical character in tales symbolically narrating the salvific acts of a cosmic being who never walked the earth (and probably never really existed at all). Later, according to theory, this myth was mistaken for history… and then embellished over time. The present book… begins the inquiry by resolving the central problem of method: HOW does one test a claim like that?... the aim here is to develop a formal historical method for approaching this (or any other) debate, which will produce as objectively credible a conclusion as any honest historian can reach. One need merely plug all the evidence into that method to get a result. That’s a bold claim, I know; but the purpose of this book is to convince you … to implement the method I propose. All I ask is that you give my argument a fair hearing.” (Pg. 7)
He reveals, “My continued work on the question has now culminated in over forty philanthropists (some of them Christians) donating a collective total of $20,000 for Atheists United, a major American educational charity, to support my research and writing of a series of books, in the hopes of giving both laypeople AND experts a serious evaluation of the evidence they can use to decide who is more probably right… By the requirements of my grant, I am writing as much for my benefactors as my fellow scholars.” (Pg. 8-9)
He acknowledges. “the burden of proof clearly falls on anyone who would challenge an existing consensus, despite repeated attempts to deny this. For example, in the matter of whether Jesus actually existed as a historical person, historicists have already met the burden of evidence to produce a consensus of qualified experts. So the deniers of historicity must overcome that burden with their own… there is certainly prima facie evidence for a historical Jesus… This usually means that a strong consensus of experts entails a high prior probability the consensus theory is true. Yet occasionally this is not so. I believe there is ample reason to conclude that the consensus is not reliable in the story of the historical Jesus and therefore cannot be appealed to as evidence for a conclusion.” (Pg. 30)
He explains, “Bayes’s Theorem is a logical formula that deals with cases of empirical ambiguity, calculating how confident we can be in any particular conclusion, given what we know at the time.” (Pg. 45) Later, he adds, “BT simply describes… ideal reasoning about empirical probabilities… And whether we’re correct or not, or aware of it or not, we always have beliefs about what those relative probabilities are… This means if you don’t follow BT, even intuitively, then you are not behaving rationally. You will be entertaining contradictory beliefs. And since BT describes the best way to reason, you will always reason better… when you follow BT, than when you just do the same thing intuitively.” (Pg. 65)
He admits, “Years ago I described two historical methods as defining the best that historians have deployed: The ‘Argument to the Best Explanation (ABE) and the Argument from Evidence (AFE)… Yet I have since discovered that everything I had argued can be better frames in Bayesian terms, especially since neither the ABE nor the AFE solves the problems I now identify as plaguing every historical method: establishing logical validity and epistemic sufficiency; in other words, why should the conclusion of these arguments be deemed logically valid and when is the evidence enough to warrant belief in the conclusion?” (Pg. 97)
He points out, “we simply DON’T KNOW much of what went on in second-temple Judaism and the early church. To the contrary, we know early Christianity and Judaism were wildly diverse and that we have scarce to no data about all the many different communities we know were flourishing at the time.” (Pg. 123) He argues, “it’s simply not true that, as Marcus Borg claims, ‘if a saying or story appears at least twice in traditions that are early and independent of each other, that is a very good reason for thinking that the gist of it goes back to Jesus.’ Because it is an equally good reason for thinking that the gist of it goes back to an originating myth… or an early storyteller’s innovation.” (Pg. 173-174)
He notes, “Applying BT to the specific question of whether some person, place, or event actually existed or not is merely a matter of ascertaining the prior and consequent probabilities. What is the prior probability that Jesus actually existed? What is the prior probability that he didn’t? How likely is the evidence we have if he did exist? How likely is the evidence we have if he didn’t?... at first glance it seems surely ‘Jesus existed’ would win out as the most probable hypothesis on BT… on second glance, that conclusion is not so obvious, and might even be wrong.” (Pg. 204)
He observes, “the odds of life forming by chance are NOT the odds of life forming by chance specifically here on earth, but the odds of life forming by chance on SOME planet SOMEWHERE in the whole of the known universe. Because, obviously, wherever that happens to be will become ‘specifically here’ for whoever ends up evolving on that planet to think about it.” (Pg. 227)
He acknowledges at his conclusion, “Some critics object that deriving conclusions about what happened in the past by using probabilistic reasoning about how surviving evidence came about is impossible, because the specific probabilities that any actual item of evidence would survive… are astronomically small… Some critics object to so many problems arise in the task of assigning prior probabilities that the endeavor should seem hopeless… Some critics also object to the use of hypothetical frequencies rather than sticking to hard data… Perhaps other objections will be imagined. But given the arguments of this and previous chapters, I doubt any will carry force. The conclusion seems inescapable to me. Historians should be Bayesians.” (Pg. 281-282)
While this volume leaves one eagerly waiting for the APPLICATION of BT to “specifics,” this volume will be of some interest to those (particularly of a skeptical turn of mind) studying the historical Jesus.
November 21, 2018
This was dense, especially for me who am not great with formulae and numbers. But I'm 110% sure this is the right approach to history, and I really hope historical scholars begin to incorporate BT in their work.
Carrier is obviously brilliant when it comes to logic and maths, and his knowledge of ancient history is not too shabby. This is the combination that's been lacking in historical study. He makes the point that BT doesn't contradict anything we're already doing with epistemic knowledge, it just clarifies it, and allows us to see each other's work, and, if necessary, critique it, or at least know why we disagree or agree.
I'm probably going to read this book again. It was hard, but I want to master this. I have decent intuition when it comes to historical hypotheses, but BT forces us to eschew (or at least expose) our biases, and articulate better how we're coming to conclusions, and I love that.
At this stage, I believe Jesus was an historical figure, somewhat mythicised, so it will be interesting to read part 2 (On the Historicity of Jesus) and see how Carrier comes to his conclusion, ie, that Jesus was probably a myth. I'll let the evidence do the convincing, but it's fun to be in a place where I'm open and undecided and have no horse in either race.
Perhaps you could criticise this book for being about 'Jesus history', when it really needs to be a book about all history, and be read by all historians and applied to all fields of historical research. I think it's general enough that any historian will learn from it though. I also think Carrier, being so mathematical, could have done with the help of a more semantically gifted co-author who could turn all those mathematical examples into non-mathematical examples, for those of us who think better in words and not equations.
Carrier is obviously brilliant when it comes to logic and maths, and his knowledge of ancient history is not too shabby. This is the combination that's been lacking in historical study. He makes the point that BT doesn't contradict anything we're already doing with epistemic knowledge, it just clarifies it, and allows us to see each other's work, and, if necessary, critique it, or at least know why we disagree or agree.
I'm probably going to read this book again. It was hard, but I want to master this. I have decent intuition when it comes to historical hypotheses, but BT forces us to eschew (or at least expose) our biases, and articulate better how we're coming to conclusions, and I love that.
At this stage, I believe Jesus was an historical figure, somewhat mythicised, so it will be interesting to read part 2 (On the Historicity of Jesus) and see how Carrier comes to his conclusion, ie, that Jesus was probably a myth. I'll let the evidence do the convincing, but it's fun to be in a place where I'm open and undecided and have no horse in either race.
Perhaps you could criticise this book for being about 'Jesus history', when it really needs to be a book about all history, and be read by all historians and applied to all fields of historical research. I think it's general enough that any historian will learn from it though. I also think Carrier, being so mathematical, could have done with the help of a more semantically gifted co-author who could turn all those mathematical examples into non-mathematical examples, for those of us who think better in words and not equations.
February 13, 2020
This dense and meticulously reasoned argument explains why the author recommends that Bayes’ Theorem be the basic technique for the analysis of hypotheses in history, both for our general education and in preparation for his second volume, On the Historicity of Jesus. I’m no expert, and I mostly used Bayes’ Theorem for demonstrations of medical diagnostic problems about 30 years ago, and then gradually more and more as a replacement of more common frequentist type statistics in everyday work as it became easier to do with computer software and better understood. From my point of view, so distant from Professor Carrier, this method acts as a way to check and compare your data, your assumptions, and your hypotheses, but, frankly, it’s hard for me to imagine thinking this way ab initio. Perhaps it comes with practice. Also, I must admit that regardless of the statistical analysis used, many of the problems that I had or was consulted about in my career mostly benefited in a similar way, i.e. the statistics confirmed why the researchers were correct in their assumptions and hypotheses, either graphically or numerically, but weren’t really necessary for them to know this initially. The great value of these techniques was always in those uncommon cases where the findings could be shown to be counter-intuitive. The classic Bayesian example that most doctors have seen, but probably never really understand, is looking for a rare disease with a sensitive test. The great majority of positive tests are false positives. I think that all of these factors are evident in Carrier’s discussion. I especially liked the flowchart in the appendix that shows the non-numerical use of Bayes’ theorem for the analysis of historical hypotheses.
January 26, 2021
Dr Richard Carrier presents his case for a Bayesian approach to the historical method, with the specific goal of tackling the historicity of Jesus. He presents Bayes's Theorem for a non-mathematically inclined audience (although mathematically savvy readers also benefit from his insights), and then argues that any sound historian should apply it to his or her work. He proceeds to demonstrate that the historicity criteria applied by most Jesus scholars (such as the criteria of dissimilarity, contextual credibility, multiple attestations etc) are only valid and validly applied to the extent that they adhere to Bayes's Theorem. He explicitly avoids excessive academicisms to make his writing more accessible (albeit slightly repetitive on the audiobook version, given that he must read out loud mathematical equations). I'm looking forward to the next volume in this series, On the Historicity of Jesus.
Read
July 6, 2022holy cow. this guy is full of himself. Carrier tries to puff up his credentials but he is like Professor Dave. Has a PhD but is not a professor. People enjoy the characters Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Spock from Star Trek because they are dramatic and confident in their deductions but reality doesn't work like that. you can't get certainty from quoting odds. i forget where the thought experiment of 4 dies with differing number of faces comes from but it illustrates my point. a normal die has six sides with the numbers 1 to 6. suppose i have a six sided, eight sided, ten sided and twelve sided die in a bag. suppose i pull one die out of a bag and tell you i rolled the number 5. what die did i pull from the bag? you can use baye's theorem and calculate the probability of a 5 is most likely with the six sided dice. but that doesn't tell you with certainty which die i used. so calculating that Jesus is more likely totally fictional holds zero weight.
January 24, 2021
Richard C. Carrier makes a compelling argument that Bayesian statistics should be used to evaluate claims of historical evidence. he does this to prepare the reader for his next book in which he takes on the historicity of some guy - Jesus of Nazareth. This book is highly detailed and dense even though it's written for those in the humanities who wet their pants in fear every time math is mentioned. Still, I think it's fair to suggest that only the rare reader (not me) can absorb everything the author addresses without reference to the actual text of the book. Learning this stuff from an audiobook is not for the average reader (including me). The audio edition is fine - it's just not the best vehicle for learning such a detailed and mathematical subject. Get the book - or better yet - the kindle version, and enjoy it immersively!
March 9, 2019
The first 100 pages included a solid summary of Bayes theorem including how it can be applied to historical claims. Later Carrier gets into critiquing historical criteria many use in analysis of the historical Jesus. He comes off as overly skeptical, seemingly assuming anything any author said about Jesus to be highly suspect and likely mythical. He dismisses the majority of historical criteria used by most scholars and tries to give reasons as to why. Some were convincing, but most weren't. Towards the end of the book, the details increase and it takes more focus to absorb the information. I read only about half of the last chapter before putting it down.
January 23, 2020
Carrier has produced an engaging treatment of the applicability of Bayes's Theorem to the historicity of historical claims in general, with the intent of eventually applying BT to the specific question of Jesus's existence. The result of his procedure is a reliable mathematical probability (expressed conventionally as some value between 0% and 100%, inclusive) that the claim is true. This is quite dense and will only be interesting to readers interested in statistics, the historicity of Jesus, or both. I fall into the "both" category and still had to read some sections more than once. I can't wait to read the second volume, in which Carrier applies the method outlined in this volume to the question of Jesus. But the second volume appears to be quite difficult to find.
December 17, 2017
I found his logic devastating. He has a stated bias, as he is clear an atheist, but it would be hard to engage in a rational discussion with the author and not agree with his premise and its application to the quest for a historical Jesus. I read this as an audiobook, and the author does a fine job of conveying the essentials, but, given my own learning style, I will pick up a eBook version to see the equations. The author is quite engaging despite the highly academic ideas he's trying to convey. A splendid read!
July 17, 2019
An interesting read for people with a good training in mathematics and some amateur interest in history. Even though he oversimplifies stuffs at times, by and large, it gives a thorough exposure to BT from a historian's perspective and how the dots should be connected while theorising about historical events. The informal way of writing attracts readers with no formal training in history without sacrificing the essence.
September 22, 2019
It should be emphasized that this book is primarily focused on understanding Bayes's theorem. Its application to Jesus studies and history more generally provides the primary case studies that the author uses to illustrate the uses of Bayes's theorem, but the greatest value in this book is, by far, it's thorough explanation of Bayes's theorem itself. Certainly that is what I personally found to be most valuable about it and the cause of my wishing that everyone would read it.
June 28, 2017
My eyes were opened. Dr Richard Carrier has identified the perfect model (Bayes theorem) for probabilistically proving history. He demonstrates an incredible command of reason, logic, statistics, and mathematics and demonstrates why all other methods for analyzing and proving history either reduce to Bayes theorem or are fallacious.
April 10, 2020
Probably closer to a 3.5. I’m a huge believer in Bayes theorem to establish diagnosis in medicine. So I’m primed to accept the theory, but I still need more reality testing. How does it work in “real life” not the simplified examples. I’m still stuck in thinking that tremendous energy is expended to stand still.
May 11, 2019
Awesome!
November 10, 2021
A new way of looking at history
March 12, 2022
Bayes theorem opens so many doors.
I think this is one of the first few books where I had to assign myself plenty of homework so that I would understand the concepts.
I think this is one of the first few books where I had to assign myself plenty of homework so that I would understand the concepts.
September 13, 2022
Es sorprendente cómo cuanto más lo lees menos dudas tienes de la existencia del Jesús histórico. Pocos apologetas reúnen tantas líneas argumentales en un par de libros.
December 20, 2012
The book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus gives an introduction to Bayesian statistical analysis and arguments for changing how historical truths are validated. Richard Carrier uses the book length exposition to argue that methods used to authenticate historical evidence should always contain Bayesian methods.
Carrier wants the reader to conclude by the end of the book that Bayesian approaches should always be used to resolve questions of historical accuracy for past events. Carrier has a steep hill to climb to prove his case. He has taken on in this book to explain Bayesian analysis to non-Bayesian scholars, to explain how Bayesian methods can effectively replace all other historical authenticity methods, why Bayesian approaches are the same as frequentist approaches and how Bayesian approaches are useful for addressing questions about biblical historical accuracy.
My view of the target audience for this book can be expressed in a form of interlocking Venn diagrams. It would contain people who have been exposed to college level statistics 101. The people should be interested in learning about Bayesian methods. They should be familiar with academic scholarship. They should be interested in learning about historical scholarship. They should have some exposure to Christian biblical information. And additionally they should be interested in assessments of Christian biblical evidence. My opinion is, that with the target action that matches the overlapped Venn diagrams, that Carrier does a fairly good job making his arguments. He adequately explains Bayes techniques for people comfortable with statistical ideas and conditional probability. He makes strong arguments for adopting his approach to historical research. I was not completely able to accept his complete argument on historical evidence. I intuitively felt he might be correct, but I was not able to follow his argument enough to be persuaded by the presentation. He uses the entire book to attack the credibility of evidence in the Bible. I agree with his arguments, but don’t think everyone would agree. So I think people who fit the target audience could enjoy the book, but I would not recommend the book for people outside of the target audience.
I would be more interested in a different goal for a future similar scholarly effort. I would like to see a Bayesian approach to why the history of Christianity led to the most successful mythic construct in human history. The value of statistical analysis is comparing human constructs and producing numerical results that represent how normal or unusual are event occurrences. A review of the statistical accuracy employed in the book is at: Review of Proving History
Carrier wants the reader to conclude by the end of the book that Bayesian approaches should always be used to resolve questions of historical accuracy for past events. Carrier has a steep hill to climb to prove his case. He has taken on in this book to explain Bayesian analysis to non-Bayesian scholars, to explain how Bayesian methods can effectively replace all other historical authenticity methods, why Bayesian approaches are the same as frequentist approaches and how Bayesian approaches are useful for addressing questions about biblical historical accuracy.
My view of the target audience for this book can be expressed in a form of interlocking Venn diagrams. It would contain people who have been exposed to college level statistics 101. The people should be interested in learning about Bayesian methods. They should be familiar with academic scholarship. They should be interested in learning about historical scholarship. They should have some exposure to Christian biblical information. And additionally they should be interested in assessments of Christian biblical evidence. My opinion is, that with the target action that matches the overlapped Venn diagrams, that Carrier does a fairly good job making his arguments. He adequately explains Bayes techniques for people comfortable with statistical ideas and conditional probability. He makes strong arguments for adopting his approach to historical research. I was not completely able to accept his complete argument on historical evidence. I intuitively felt he might be correct, but I was not able to follow his argument enough to be persuaded by the presentation. He uses the entire book to attack the credibility of evidence in the Bible. I agree with his arguments, but don’t think everyone would agree. So I think people who fit the target audience could enjoy the book, but I would not recommend the book for people outside of the target audience.
I would be more interested in a different goal for a future similar scholarly effort. I would like to see a Bayesian approach to why the history of Christianity led to the most successful mythic construct in human history. The value of statistical analysis is comparing human constructs and producing numerical results that represent how normal or unusual are event occurrences. A review of the statistical accuracy employed in the book is at: Review of Proving History
June 9, 2015
What [Sir Peter Brian] Medawar complained about was the charade the science world has engaged in over the ages in pretending that science is conducted with robotic processes that are not contaminated by the irrationalities of human thought and bias. The inherent philosophy of a scientific paper is the assumption that science is conducted through the process of deduction– that the scientist blindly goes about gathering information on all aspects of a subject and then eventually sits down and, through the process of deduction, puts the information together to create a picture of what's going on. […] The truth is, scientists are humans, and from the outset they rely on "induction," which draws on the highly human faculty of … intuition. And this is where Medawar says the scientific paper is a fraud. The scientist tells himself that he is writing up "just the facts," but there have been huge numbers of biases from the beginning of the project's conception. – Randy Olson, Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style
Despite Medawar's and Olson's concerns, Richard Carrier argues in this book that it would be a wonderful thing to carry the fiction of the hyper-rational professional scientist over to the realm of the professional historian. I couldn't help sensing behind this yet another atheist with a huge chip on his shoulder, quite sure that his logical abilities and scientific mindedness must be superior to those non-atheist colleagues who have yet to see the light of reason. Although Carrier berates those other illogical Jesus scholars for telling Just So stories and bootstrapping probabilities (representing the probability that their hypothesis as being correct as higher than it actually is), I didn't see any evidence in this book that he is less prone to doing the exact same thing.
To be fair, I have to withhold final judgement on this last point until I read the sequel to this book. Honestly, I wasn't even going to bother reading it until I got to the last chapter of this book, which was a truly excellent explanation of how Bayes' Theorem works and how it can be applied to historical questions. This made me truly interested in how he will apply it to the Jesus question. It also caused me to boost the rating of the book by a star. The book was running a solid two stars up until p. 207.
Despite Medawar's and Olson's concerns, Richard Carrier argues in this book that it would be a wonderful thing to carry the fiction of the hyper-rational professional scientist over to the realm of the professional historian. I couldn't help sensing behind this yet another atheist with a huge chip on his shoulder, quite sure that his logical abilities and scientific mindedness must be superior to those non-atheist colleagues who have yet to see the light of reason. Although Carrier berates those other illogical Jesus scholars for telling Just So stories and bootstrapping probabilities (representing the probability that their hypothesis as being correct as higher than it actually is), I didn't see any evidence in this book that he is less prone to doing the exact same thing.
To be fair, I have to withhold final judgement on this last point until I read the sequel to this book. Honestly, I wasn't even going to bother reading it until I got to the last chapter of this book, which was a truly excellent explanation of how Bayes' Theorem works and how it can be applied to historical questions. This made me truly interested in how he will apply it to the Jesus question. It also caused me to boost the rating of the book by a star. The book was running a solid two stars up until p. 207.
June 3, 2019
A sensible approach
to evaluating the probability of assertions about history. Carrier’s approach using Bayes’s Theorem to cut through specious arguments is a valid scientific method, an important analytical tool, and can be helpful pedagogical technique.
While I would rate the main thesis and content of the book as 5 stars, overall readability is perhaps more like 3 stars. Hence my rating of 4 stars.
The first difficulty Carrier faces is that of trying to explain mathematical concepts of probability and statistics that are thoroughly garbled most people’s minds to a nontechnical audience. I have 3 degrees in mathematics, so I mind this and don't view this as adversely affecting readability directly, but it does mean that he does face a difficult problem as an author.
There were three main problems with readability that I noted.
(1) Typos and other small errors: these were mostly minor and just a little annoying. For example, missing parentheses in formulae, numerical errors in cross-references in explanations, and the introduction of mathematical techniques in notes (specifically Laplace's Rule of Succession) that are not explained in the book itself.
(2) Philosophical prolixity: an unfortunate tendancy to lapse into philosophical jargon when it is not really needed. As a reader with considerable mathematical training, I find this simply to be annoying noise. I can only conjecture that the effect on a nontechnical reader is not likely to be good. I think it marks a lapse in the author's awareness of the needs of his target audience.
(3) Diffuse reasoning in analysis: this is a problem in presentation style. In Carrier's analysis of historicity criteria the presentation of the analytical reasoning tends to be too diffuse. In presenting his analysis he also presents and refutes all common counterarguments as he goes along. This sometimes makes it comically difficult to follow the overarching thread of analytical reasoning over the course of 80 pages say, when a dozen or more examples of counterarguments are brought up and refuted in the course of the explanation. It would be much easier to follow the reasoning if it were first succinctly outlined an argued in 10 to 20 pages. Then examine the examples after the argument is completed and in the reader's mind to exhibit their fallacies.
to evaluating the probability of assertions about history. Carrier’s approach using Bayes’s Theorem to cut through specious arguments is a valid scientific method, an important analytical tool, and can be helpful pedagogical technique.
While I would rate the main thesis and content of the book as 5 stars, overall readability is perhaps more like 3 stars. Hence my rating of 4 stars.
The first difficulty Carrier faces is that of trying to explain mathematical concepts of probability and statistics that are thoroughly garbled most people’s minds to a nontechnical audience. I have 3 degrees in mathematics, so I mind this and don't view this as adversely affecting readability directly, but it does mean that he does face a difficult problem as an author.
There were three main problems with readability that I noted.
(1) Typos and other small errors: these were mostly minor and just a little annoying. For example, missing parentheses in formulae, numerical errors in cross-references in explanations, and the introduction of mathematical techniques in notes (specifically Laplace's Rule of Succession) that are not explained in the book itself.
(2) Philosophical prolixity: an unfortunate tendancy to lapse into philosophical jargon when it is not really needed. As a reader with considerable mathematical training, I find this simply to be annoying noise. I can only conjecture that the effect on a nontechnical reader is not likely to be good. I think it marks a lapse in the author's awareness of the needs of his target audience.
(3) Diffuse reasoning in analysis: this is a problem in presentation style. In Carrier's analysis of historicity criteria the presentation of the analytical reasoning tends to be too diffuse. In presenting his analysis he also presents and refutes all common counterarguments as he goes along. This sometimes makes it comically difficult to follow the overarching thread of analytical reasoning over the course of 80 pages say, when a dozen or more examples of counterarguments are brought up and refuted in the course of the explanation. It would be much easier to follow the reasoning if it were first succinctly outlined an argued in 10 to 20 pages. Then examine the examples after the argument is completed and in the reader's mind to exhibit their fallacies.
September 25, 2014
I can't entirely say I finished this book. I got into it just beyond one hundred pages before I had to admit it was a tough read. I found myself re-reading paragraphs and going back several pages on many occasions.
You see, I suck at statics. And this book is one where a healthy knowledge of stats would benefit me.
"Proving History" is the precursor to Carrier's follow up, "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". And that is the one I really want to get into. But I figured laying the ground work, understanding the method (and being able to use it in other studies of history) would be beneficial. But I am afraid my brain isn't wired for it. Math of any kind is not my strong subject. So I had to put this one away for awhile.
I gave it four stars because from what I could gather, it was an excellent and new argument for coming to a concise conclusion on the Jesus myth. I've read many books and articles regarding Christianity and there are so many different opinions, it appears we'll never actually know. I can't think of any other study (other than a pseudo-science like the Ancient Astronaut Theory or astrology, etc) where opinions are so varied. Imagine if physicist had such differing opinions, some accepting gravity, some accepting more that they weren't pulled down so much as being pushed from above, etc. The extreme variety of opinions on the Jesus myth would be unacceptable in any other field, so too should it be for history.
My own personal opinion for many years now is that the Jesus story mimics so many other myths, we can conclude that Jesus never actually existed. And this is the opinion of Richard Carrier. With the use of Bayes's Thorem, his follow up, "On the Historicity of Jesus", sets out to show that the Jesus story is just that - a myth. One hardly any more original than that of Inanna or Romulus. So I set out to read "Proving History" to have some evidence to back up my personal conviction. But it has proven to be a little much for me. I'll wait until I can get a copy of "On the Historicity of Jesus" to see how Carrier applies Bayes's Theorem; then, I may return to "Proving History". I may be able to understand the stats better after seeing it applied.
You see, I suck at statics. And this book is one where a healthy knowledge of stats would benefit me.
"Proving History" is the precursor to Carrier's follow up, "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt". And that is the one I really want to get into. But I figured laying the ground work, understanding the method (and being able to use it in other studies of history) would be beneficial. But I am afraid my brain isn't wired for it. Math of any kind is not my strong subject. So I had to put this one away for awhile.
I gave it four stars because from what I could gather, it was an excellent and new argument for coming to a concise conclusion on the Jesus myth. I've read many books and articles regarding Christianity and there are so many different opinions, it appears we'll never actually know. I can't think of any other study (other than a pseudo-science like the Ancient Astronaut Theory or astrology, etc) where opinions are so varied. Imagine if physicist had such differing opinions, some accepting gravity, some accepting more that they weren't pulled down so much as being pushed from above, etc. The extreme variety of opinions on the Jesus myth would be unacceptable in any other field, so too should it be for history.
My own personal opinion for many years now is that the Jesus story mimics so many other myths, we can conclude that Jesus never actually existed. And this is the opinion of Richard Carrier. With the use of Bayes's Thorem, his follow up, "On the Historicity of Jesus", sets out to show that the Jesus story is just that - a myth. One hardly any more original than that of Inanna or Romulus. So I set out to read "Proving History" to have some evidence to back up my personal conviction. But it has proven to be a little much for me. I'll wait until I can get a copy of "On the Historicity of Jesus" to see how Carrier applies Bayes's Theorem; then, I may return to "Proving History". I may be able to understand the stats better after seeing it applied.
October 31, 2014
Bayes' Theorem: A formula for determining conditional probability named after 18th-century British mathematician Thomas Bayes. The theorem provides a way to revise existing predictions or theories given new or additional evidence.
I have mixed reviews about this book. Throughout the book it feels like an assertive sales pitch, cleverly and convincingly structured to promote the probability theory algorithm known as "Bayes Theorem" as a scaffolding upon which to build any historical investigation. As my first Richard Carrier book, I found his writing style, although teetering on the edge of dry at times (other times nudged over the edge) very thorough as he meticulously dissects the formulas' components. I typically listen to my audiobooks at 1.8x or 2x the speed (depending on the speech style of the presenter), but there were some heavy moments in this audiobook (eg: Chapter 3) where I had to slow the playback to normal speed to grasp the technical aspects of the variables used. I admit my head is still spinning a little from this, but I got the gist of it. By the end of the book the reader will likely feel Carrier makes a strong case for running any hypothesis through the Bayes Theorem model, and as a historical layperson I would tend to agree. He makes a good sales pitch.
In conclusion, I felt the book was preparatory validation of the theorem's use, setting up the reader for the real book: Volume II, in which Carrier takes the hypothesis of a historical Jesus through the Bayes Theorem model, and that is what I REALLY want to read about. Although the author has laid down some foreshadowing by introducing occasional "teasers" about the history of Jesus (and so far it seems there is little factual credibility in these tales), I finished this book ready to follow along as he dives into the task using Bayes theorem to investigate the validity of a historical Jesus. Does anyone know when VOL2 is due for release?
I have mixed reviews about this book. Throughout the book it feels like an assertive sales pitch, cleverly and convincingly structured to promote the probability theory algorithm known as "Bayes Theorem" as a scaffolding upon which to build any historical investigation. As my first Richard Carrier book, I found his writing style, although teetering on the edge of dry at times (other times nudged over the edge) very thorough as he meticulously dissects the formulas' components. I typically listen to my audiobooks at 1.8x or 2x the speed (depending on the speech style of the presenter), but there were some heavy moments in this audiobook (eg: Chapter 3) where I had to slow the playback to normal speed to grasp the technical aspects of the variables used. I admit my head is still spinning a little from this, but I got the gist of it. By the end of the book the reader will likely feel Carrier makes a strong case for running any hypothesis through the Bayes Theorem model, and as a historical layperson I would tend to agree. He makes a good sales pitch.
In conclusion, I felt the book was preparatory validation of the theorem's use, setting up the reader for the real book: Volume II, in which Carrier takes the hypothesis of a historical Jesus through the Bayes Theorem model, and that is what I REALLY want to read about. Although the author has laid down some foreshadowing by introducing occasional "teasers" about the history of Jesus (and so far it seems there is little factual credibility in these tales), I finished this book ready to follow along as he dives into the task using Bayes theorem to investigate the validity of a historical Jesus. Does anyone know when VOL2 is due for release?
November 1, 2015
The book is a bit dry due to the material, so while I don't think it was bad, it's also not a very entertaining book. Probably a recommended book to read if your field is ancient history, or you really want to dig into Carrier's next book on applying the theorem to the Jesus case.
For those interested in applying Baye's theorem to ancient history, this book does make a compelling and interesting argument for doing so. In fact it even shows us that any worthwhile approach to history would inherently apply it in some way even if not spelled out exactly as such.
Overall though, I think the target audience for this book is limited, and my only reason for getting through it was to see how Carrier would use it in his other writing.
For those interested in applying Baye's theorem to ancient history, this book does make a compelling and interesting argument for doing so. In fact it even shows us that any worthwhile approach to history would inherently apply it in some way even if not spelled out exactly as such.
Overall though, I think the target audience for this book is limited, and my only reason for getting through it was to see how Carrier would use it in his other writing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews