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]
 Book Cover | |
| Author | Richard Carrier |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | |
| Genre | Nonfiction |
| Publisher | Prometheus Books |
Publication date | 2012 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print, e book |
| Pages | 344 |
| ISBN | 978-1616145590 |
| Followed by | On the Historicity of Jesus |
Background and development
editCarrier 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
editCarrier 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
edit| 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
editAcademic 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 (pen name) 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
edit- ^ a b c Carrier, Richard C. (2012). Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1616145590.
- ^ Proving History. Simon & Schuster. April 24, 2012. ISBN 978-1-61614-559-0. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ a b c "Proving History!". RichardCarrier.info. February 8, 2012. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ Tucker, Aviezer (2016). "The Reverend Bayes vs. Jesus Christ". History and Theory. 55 (1): 129–140. doi:10.1111/hith.10791. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ McGrath, James F. (August 7, 2012). "Review of Richard C. Carrier, Proving History". Patheos. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ Hoffmann, R. Joseph (May 29, 2012). "Proving What?". The New Oxonian. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ Hendrix, Tim (May 4, 2013). "Richard Carrier Proving History Review". Scribd. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ Godfrey, Neil (2012). "Richard Carrier's Proving History... Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 reviews". Vridar. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ 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. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ "On Richard Carrier's Doubts (author's offprint PDF)" (PDF). JSHJ offprint. 2017. Retrieved October 4, 2025.
- ^ Lukeprog (February 1, 2012). "Mini-review: Proving History". LessWrong. Retrieved October 4, 2025.