Proving History

Carrier's "Proving History" presents a radical methodological critique of historical Jesus studies, arguing that the field's traditional approaches lack mathematical rigor and epistemic validity. While not directly addressing God's existence, the work undermines confidence in historical claims about Jesus that often serve as foundations for theistic arguments. Carrier contends that historians studying Christian origins employ flawed criteria that would not withstand scrutiny in other historical disciplines.

The monograph's central innovation involves applying Bayes' theorem to historical methodology. Carrier argues that all historical reasoning implicitly relies on probabilistic inference, and that making this process explicit through Bayesian analysis exposes the weakness of conventional historical Jesus scholarship. He systematically examines the "criteria of authenticity" used by New Testament scholars—such as multiple attestation, embarrassment, and dissimilarity—demonstrating that these tools often produce contradictory results and rest on questionable assumptions about probability.

Carrier positions his work against the mainstream consensus in biblical studies, particularly targeting scholars like John Meier, E.P. Sanders, and Bart Ehrman who maintain that substantial historical information about Jesus can be recovered from the gospels. He argues that their methodological frameworks privilege certain conclusions while appearing neutral, effectively smuggling theological assumptions into supposedly secular historical analysis. The book suggests that when proper probabilistic reasoning replaces these flawed criteria, the evidential basis for a historical Jesus becomes far more tenuous than typically acknowledged.

The philosophical implications extend beyond biblical studies. Carrier's critique implies that many historical arguments for religious claims—particularly those depending on gospel reliability—rest on methodological foundations too weak to support their conclusions. By demanding that historical Jesus studies meet the epistemic standards of other historical fields, he challenges the special pleading often granted to religiously significant historical claims.

The work's significance lies not in directly refuting theism but in undermining a crucial evidential pathway to Christian belief. If Carrier's methodological critique succeeds, it severely weakens historical arguments for Christianity's truth claims, though it does not address philosophical arguments for God's existence. His approach represents a broader skeptical project: subjecting religious historical claims to the same rigorous probabilistic analysis applied elsewhere, thereby revealing their epistemic fragility when stripped of disciplinary special protections.