Table of Contents Categories
  Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
  supported by EncyclosphereKSF

Proving History

Topic: History

 From HandWiki - Reading time: 4 min
Short description: Methodology monograph applying Bayes's theorem to historical Jesus research

Proving History
Book Cover
AuthorRichard Carrier
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
Subject
GenreNonfiction
PublisherPrometheus Books
Publication date
2012
Media typePrint, e book
Pages344
ISBN978-1616145590
Followed byOn the Historicity of Jesus 

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus is a methodological study by American historian Richard Carrier. It argues that historical inference, including research on the historical Jesus, should use an explicit Bayesian framework that separates background knowledge from evidence specific likelihoods. Carrier critiques the traditional criteria of authenticity and states that sound historical procedures can be expressed within Bayes's theorem.[1][2]

Background and development

Carrier positioned Proving History as the opening volume of a two part project, with the subsequent book On the Historicity of Jesus intended to test competing reconstructions of Christian origins.[3] Before publication he reported that the manuscript had completed academic peer review, including review of the Bayesian analysis by a mathematics professor, and he described the project as a corrective to perceived methodological failures in New Testament studies.[3] He characterized the book as an attempt to formalize what historians already do in practice when weighing hypotheses and evidence.[3][1]

Method and scope

Carrier argues that historical reasoning is probabilistic. He recommends modeling priors from background knowledge and defining likelihoods for the evidence, followed by sensitivity analysis and careful control for dependence among sources. He contends that the widely used criteria of authenticity in Jesus research lack demonstrated reliability when used as stand alone rules and should be either retired or reframed as conditional components within a Bayesian workflow.[1]

Criteria examined

Criterion Carrier's assessment Proposed Bayesian treatment
Dissimilarity Risks privileging eccentricity and undercounts dependence between sources Treat as a weak likelihood ratio when rival hypotheses make differential predictions about independence and novelty
Embarrassment Vulnerable to motivated narration and retrospective rationalization Applicable only when specific, externally anchored embarrassment predictions differ by hypothesis and can be bounded
Multiple attestation Often misapplied because source traditions are not independent Use only after modeling literary or oral dependence and then weight by effective independence
Coherence Can produce circular confirmation Permit coherence scoring only within explicit competing models and compare relative fits rather than absolute assertions

Reception

Academic and para academic reception focused on feasibility and utility rather than on any single historical conclusion. Aviezer Tucker reviewed the book in History and Theory and supported the use of probabilistic reasoning in historiography while disputing parts of Carrier's application.[4]

New Testament scholar James F. McGrath published a detailed critical review that disputed Carrier's claims about the criteria of authenticity and the transferability of Bayes style updates to contested ancient data.[5]

Historian of religion R. Joseph Hoffmann criticized the project in essays that claimed Carrier mischaracterizes how historians work and that the approach promises more than it can deliver for ancient biography.[6]

Independent reviewers produced extended responses on methodology. Tim Hendrix wrote a Bayesian focused critique that addressed reference class definition and independence assumptions.[7] Neil Godfrey examined chapters in a multipart review, welcoming probabilistic clarity while questioning several historical judgments.[8]

Subsequent reviews of Carrier's follow-up work, On the Historicity of Jesus, cited Proving History as their methodological foundation. Daniel N. Gullotta's essay in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus summarized and rejected key probability assignments, noting earlier blog and web based reviews of Proving History.[9] [10]

Shorter reviews appeared in rationalist and skeptic outlets, often sympathetic to the call for explicit probabilities while divided over implementation.[11]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Carrier, Richard C. (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1616145590. 
  2. ↑ Proving History. Simon & Schuster. April 24, 2012. ISBN 978-1-61614-559-0. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Proving-History/Richard-C-Carrier/9781616145590. Retrieved 2025-10-04. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 "Proving History!". February 8, 2012. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/255. 
  4. ↑ Tucker, Aviezer (2016). "The Reverend Bayes vs. Jesus Christ". History and Theory 55 (1): 129–140. doi:10.1111/hith.10791. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.10791. Retrieved 2025-10-04. 
  5. ↑ McGrath, James F. (August 7, 2012). "Review of Richard C. Carrier, Proving History". https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2012/08/review-of-richard-c-carrier-proving-history.html. 
  6. ↑ Hoffmann, R. Joseph (May 29, 2012). "Proving What?". https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/proving-what/. 
  7. ↑ Hendrix, Tim (May 4, 2013). "Richard Carrier Proving History Review". https://www.scribd.com/document/271358647/Richard-Carrier-Proving-History-Review. 
  8. ↑ Godfrey, Neil (2012). "Richard Carrier's Proving History... Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 reviews". https://vridar.org/tag/carrier-proving-history/. 
  9. ↑ Gullotta, Daniel N. (2017). "On Richard Carrier's Doubts: A Response to Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus". Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2–3): 310–346. doi:10.1163/17455197-01502009. https://brill.com/view/journals/jshj/15/2-3/article-p310_310.xml. Retrieved 2025-10-04. 
  10. ↑ "On Richard Carrier's Doubts (author's offprint PDF)". 2017. https://scapegoatshadows.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2b22b-17455197-journal-for-the-study-of-the-historical-jesus-on-richard-carriers-doubts.pdf. 
  11. ↑ Lukeprog (February 1, 2012). Mini-review: Proving History. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/e4DaC66P3cY7SHXCv/mini-review-proving-history-bayes-theorem-and-the-quest-for. Retrieved 2025-10-04. 



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=History:Proving_History&oldid=4180715"
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Source: https://handwiki.org/wiki/History:Proving_History
1 views |
↧ Download this article as ZWI file
Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF