Note that the correct use of “may” and “might” is important in these answers. If the verb is a subjunctive the author wants you to translate it as “may”, but if it is an optative then you are to translate it as “might”.

Also, remember that the tense of a subjunctive or an optative (as well as an infinitive) does not indicate the actual time (e.g. the past) but only the aspect. The present tense shows progressive or repeated aspect (e.g. “that you may be educating”), while the aorist tense shows simple aspect (e.g. “that you may educate”), and the perfect tense shows completed aspect (e.g. “to have educated”).

Answers to ‘Drill’ Questions

Section I

1. We have sent. Perfect indicative. Singular form is πέπομφα.
2. They had sent. Pluperfect indicative. Singular form is ἐπεπόμφει(ν).
3. You were sending. Imperfect indicative. Plural form is ἐπέμπετε.
4. He has sent. Perfect indicative. Plural form is πεπόμφασι(ν).
5. I sent. Aorist indicative. Plural form is ἐπέμψαμεν.
6. He had sent. Pluperfect indicative. Plural form is ἐπεπέμφεσαν.
7. To have sent. Perfect infinitive.
8. He will send. Future indicative. Plural form is πέμψουσι(ν).
9. He may be sending. Present subjunctive. Plural form is πέμπωσι(ν).
10. You may send. Aorist subjunctive. Plural form is πέμψητε.
11. You will send. Future indicative. Plural form is πέμψετε.
12. We may be sending. Present subjunctive. Singular form is πέμπω.
13. They will send. Future indicative. Singular form is πέμψει.
14. They may be sending. Present subjunctive. Singular form is πεμπῃ.
15. (a) I shall send. Future indicative. Plural form is πέμψομεν; and (b) I may send. Aorist subjunctive. Plural form is πέμψωμεν.
16. I might be sending. Present optative. Plural form is πέμποιμεν.
17. He might send. Aorist optative. Plural form is πέμψειαν.
18. (a) To send. Aorist infinitive; and (b) He might send. Aorist optative. Plural form is πέμψαιεν.
19. They might be sending. Present optative. Singular form is πέμποι.
20. To be sending. Present infinitive.
21. I had sent. Pluperfect indicative. Plural form is ἐπεπόμφεμεν.

Section II

1. You send gold in order that we may be sending books. [present subjunctive active]
2. You send gold in order that we may send books. [aorist subjunctive active]
3. You will send gold in order that we may send books. [aorist subjunctive active]
4. You sent gold in order that we might send books. [aorist optative active]
5. You have released the brothers in order that he may send gifts. [aorist subjunctive active]
6. You had released the brothers in order that he might send gifts. [aorist optative active]
7. You were releasing the brothers in order that he might send gifts. [aorist optative active]
8. He was educating the brothers in order that you might send gold. [aorist optative active]
9. He educated the brothers in order that you might send gold. [aorist optative active]
10. In order that you may be sending gold, he educates the brothers. [present subjunctive active]
11. We will not send gold in order that he may not send animals. [aorist subjunctive active]
12. We were not sending gold in order that they might not be sending animals. [present optative active]

Answers to ‘Exercise’ Questions

Section I

1. The people on the roads will sacrifice to the gods in order that they may stop the war.
2. The people are sacrificing to the goddesses in order that they may stop the war.
3. The strangers from the marketplace sent messengers in order that they might destroy the peace.
4. I was sending messengers around the island in order that you [plural] might not be destroying the peace.
5. They have sent gifts in order that we may free Homer.
6. In fact [or "of course"], you [plural] are commanding Homer to write a book about the war in order that you may teach the brothers well. For they will guard the country.
7. He sent gold to the assembly and the council in order that they might not dissolve the friendship.
8. On the one hand, the gods did not guard Homer’s eyes; on the other hand, they have guarded well the books concerning the virtue of the men.
9. On the one hand, by a word they had destroyed the peace; on the other hand, by a deed, they had not.
10. Will you write five books concerning the sacrifices to the gods in order that we may send gifts to the gods?
11. Through the will of the gods we had stopped the war, but we did not send crowns to the marketplace.
12. Since we guarded the messengers, who were from the strangers, they did not destroy the democracy.
13. Has Homer educated the brothers with the skill concerning words in order that they may guard well virtue in battles?
14. Through virtue we had sent crowns, prizes of victory, to the friends.
15. Since we did not sacrifice to the god before the war, now, even in the island and in the marketplace, we have sacrificed in order that we may send virtue into souls.
16. The people sent even the stranger out of the country into the island in order that he might not destroy the peace. For he had written six books concerning war.
17. O Homer, on the one hand, you send a book instead of gold to the brother; on the other hand, to the god, a crown instead of an animal.
18. You were sacrificing to the gods in order that they might teach the strangers, in the island, concerning virtue.
19. He commanded the brothers to stop the war before their victory.
20. The strangers will send gifts either to the council or to the assembly in order that they may not destroy the friendship.
21. The books of Homer have taught the strangers.
22. From the marketplace.
    At the side of the brother of Homer.
    Through the house.
    Beside Homer.
    Through the island.
    To have sacrificed.
    To have stopped.

Section II

1. λελύκαμεν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἵνα μη λύσῃς τὴν εἰρηνην.
   [Note that the present subjunctive λύῃς could be used instead of the aorist subjunctive, but I think the simple aspect of the aorist makes more sense here than the repeated/progressive aspect of the present. Also note that I translated "you" as 2nd-person singular instead of 2nd-person plural (λύητε/λύσητε), though this fine too considering the question is ambiguous in this regard]
2. ἀλλὰ ἐπεπόμφης ἆθλα τῷ Ὁμέρῳ ἵνα παιδεύοι τὸν ἀδελφόν.
   [Note that the aorist optative παιδεύσαι could be used instead of the present optative, but I prefer the progressive/repeated aspect of the latter]
3. ἐγεγράφειν βιβλίον περὶ εἰρήνης ἳνα  παύσαιμεν πολέμους.
   [Note that the present optative παύσοιμεν could be used instead of the aorist optative, but I prefer the simple aspect of the latter]

Also, for each of these three answers ὡς or ὅπως can be used instead of ἵνα.

Answers to ‘Drill’ Questions

Section I

1. Past Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Imperfect Tense
2. Future Time + Simple Aspect = Future Tense
3. Past Time + Simple Aspect = Aorist Tense
4. Present Time + Completed Aspect = Perfect Tense
5. Past Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Imperfect Tense
6. Present Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Present Tense
7. Future Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Future Tense
8. Past Time + Completed Aspect = Pluperfect Tense
9. Future Time + Simple Aspect = Future Tense
10. Present Time + Progressive/Repeated Aspect = Present Tense

Section II

1. παιδεύσεις (second person singular, “you will educate”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes future tense; plural form is παιδεύσετε).
2. ἐπαίδευσας (second person singular, “you educated”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευσ- which denotes aorist tense; plural form is ἐπαιδεύσατε).
3. παιδεύεις (second person singular, “you are educating” or “you educate”; tense stem is παιδευ- which denotes present tense; plural form is παιδεύετε).
4. ἔλυον (can be either first person singular or third person plural, “I was releasing” and “they were releasing”; tense stem in both cases is ἐλυ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form of first person singular is ἐλυομεν, and singular form the third person plural is ἐλυεν with the ν being removable).
5. πέμψομεν (first person plural, “we shall send”; tense stem is πέμψ- which denotes future tense; singular form is πεμψω).
6. ἔπεμψαν (third person plural, “they educated”; tense stem is ἐπεμψ- which denotes aorist tense; singular for is ἔπεμψα).
7. λύει (third person singular, “it is releasing”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; plural form is λύουσιν).
8. πέμψουσιν (third person plural, “they will send” or “they will be sending”; tense stem is πεμψ- which denotes future tense; singular form is πέμψει).
9. πέμπουσιν (third person plural, “they are sending” or “they send”; tense stem is πεμπ- which denotes present tense; singular form is πέμπει).
10. ἔλυεν (third person singular, “it was releasing”; tense stem is ελυ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἔλυον).
11. ἐπαίδευον (can be either first person singular or third person plural, “I was educating” and “they were educating”; tense stem in both cases is ἐπαιδευ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form of first person singular is ἐπαιδεύομεν, and singular form of third person plural is ἐπαιδευεν with the ν being removable).
12. πέμπομεν (first person plural, “we are sending” or “we send”; stem tense is πεμπ- which denotes present tense; plural form is πέμπω).
13. ἔπεμψεν (third person singular, “it sent”; tense stem is ἐπεμψ- which denotes aorist tense; plural form is ἔπεμψαν).
14. ἔπεμπεν (third person singular, “it was sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἐπέμπεον).
15. ἔπεμπον (can be either first person singular or third person plural, “I was sending” and “they were sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form of first person singular is ἐπέμπομεν, and singular form of third person plural is ἔπεμπεν with the ν being removable).
16. παιδεύσω (first person singular, “I shall educate”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes future tense; plural form is παιδέσομεν).
17. ἐπαιδεύσαμεν (first person plural, “we educated”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἐπαίδεσα).
18. παιδεύετε (second person plural, “you are educating” or “you educate”; tense stem is παιδευ- which denotes present tense; singular form is παιδεύεις).
19. ἐπαιδεύετε (second person plural, “you were educating”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευ- which denotes imperfect tense; singular form is ἐπαίδευς).
20. παιδεύσετε (second person plural, “you will educate” or “you will be educating”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes future tense; singular form is παιδεύσεις).
21. ἐπαιδεύσατε (second person plural, “you educated”; tense stem is ἐπαιδευσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἐπαίδευσας).
22. λύσομεν (first person plural, “we shall release”; tense stem is λυσ- which denotes future tense; singular form is λύσω).
23. ἐλύσαμεν (first person plural, “we released”; tense stem is ἐλυσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἔλυσα).
24. λύομεν (first person plural, “we are releasing” or “we release”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; singular form is λύω).
25. ἐλύομεν (first person plural, “we were releasing”; tense stem is ἐλυ- which denotes imperfect tense; singular form is ἔλυον).
26. οὐ πέμψεις (second person singular, “you will not send”; tense stem is πεμψ- which denotes future tense; singular form is οὐ πέμψετε).
27. οὐκ ἔπεμψας (second person singular, “you have not educated”; tense stem is ἐπεμψ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is οὐκ ἐπέμψατε).
28. οὐκ ἔπεμπες (second person singular, “you were not sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is οὐκ ἐπέμπετε).
29. παιδεύουσι (third person plural, “they are educating”; tense stem is παιδευ- which denotes present tense; singular form is παιδεύει).
30. παιδεύσουσιν (third person plural, “they are educating”; tense stem is παιδευσ- which denotes present tense; singular form is παιδεύσει).
31. λύσει (third person singular, “it will release” or “it will be releasing”; tense stem is λυσ- which denotes future tense; plural form is λυσουσιν).
32. ἔπεμπες (second person singular, “you were sending”; tense stem is ἐπεμπ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἐπέμπετε).
33. λύουσιν (third person plural, “they were releasing”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; singular form is λύει).
34. ἐλύσατε (second person plural, “you released”; tense stem is ἐλυσ- which denotes aorist tense; singular form is ἔλυσας).
35. λύεις (second person singular, “you are releasing” or “you release”; tense stem is λυ- which denotes present tense; plural form is λύετε).
36. ἔλυες (second person singular, “you were releasing”; tense stem is ἐλυ- which denotes imperfect tense; plural form is ἐλύετε).

Section III

1. Verb = ἐπαίδευες (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person singular).
   Translation = “O Homer, you were educating the men” (or “you used to educate”).
2. Verb = πέμψω (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person singular).
   Translation = “I shall send Homer into the marketplace” (or “shall be sending”).
3. Verb = ἐπέμψατε (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person plural).
   Translation = “You sent the brother onto the island”.
4. Verb = ἐπαίδευσαν (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person plural).
   Translation = “The gods educated Homer by their words”.
5. Verb = λύσομεν (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural).
   Translation = “We shall release the brother”.
6. Verb = ἐλύομεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural).
   Translation = “We were releasing the men in the house”.
7. Verb = παιδεύει (present tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
   Translation = “He educates the brother of Homer” (or “is educating”).
8. Verb = ἐπαίδευεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
   Translation = “Homer was educating the brother” (or “used to educate”).
9. Verb = παιδεύει (present tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
   Translation = “The deeds of the gods educate the men”.
10. Verb = ἔπεμπεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The goddess was sending her words into the soul of Homer” (or “used to send”).
11. Verb = λύσουσιν (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “The gods will release the men on the island”.
12. Verb = ἐπαίδευον (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person singular or 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “I was educating the brother by means of skill” (or “used to educate”)
    Translation = “They were educating the brother by means of skill” (or “used to educate”).
13. Verbs = λύειν (present infinitive active), and ε̉κέλευσεν (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The god commanded Homer to release the men” (note that the present tense in the infinitive does not indicate time, but a progressive/repeated aspect).
14. Verbs = λῦσαι (aorist infinitive active) and ε̉κέλευσεν (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The god commanded Homer to release the men” (the aorist infinitive active indicates simple aspect).
15. Verb = έπεμπες (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person singular).
    Translation = “You were sending the brother into the marketplace” (or “you used to send”).
16. Verb = ἐπαίδευε (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person singular).
    Translation = “The books of Homer were educating the men” (“used to educate”).
17. Verb = λύομεν (present tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural).
    Translation = “We are releasing the brothers” (or “we release”).
18. Verb = ἐπαίδευσας (aorist tense; indicative mood; active voice; 2nd person singular).
    Translation = “You educated the brother by word and deed”.
19. Verb = πέμπψουσιν (future tense; indicative mood; active voice; 3rd person plural).
    Translation = “They will send the brother out of the land” (“will be sending”).
20. Verbs = ἐκελεύομεν (imperfect tense; indicative mood; active voice; 1st person plural), and πέμψαι (aorist active infinitive).
    Translation = “We were commanding Homer to send the book onto the island” (or “used to command”).

Answers to ‘Exercise’ Questions

Section I

1. The gods were sending gifts into the land.
2. Homer sent five books to the foreigners/strangers.
3. Before the wars, the men on the island shall send six messengers to the friends.
4. Will you destroy even the friendship of the goddess? [notice I translated the και as "even"].
5. We were dissolving the wars by either words or deeds.
6. You taught the friends at Homer’s place the skill of words.
7. On the one hand, we will send crowns to the strangers; to the friends, on the other hand, books.
8. Did the strangers not release the friend in the house?
9. By deed, not word, I was freeing the friends [the verb can also legitimately be translated as "they were freeing"].
10. Before the battle, you commanded the friends to send gifts/bribes to the god out of the house onto the island.
11. Stranger, will you not release the friend in the house?
12. The books from the strangers taught the men in the marketplace – the friends of Homer.
13. The six brothers were sending a crown of gold out of the land to Homer and the brother of Homer.
14. On the one hand, Homer will teach the friends in the house well by words; the brothers, on the other hand, by deeds.
15. We sent the messenger from the strangers away from the marketplace onto the island. For we were ordering the men on the island to dissolve the war.
16. Brother, are you sending the animals to the marketplace or not?
17. Even now Homer teaches the souls of strangers. For the gods were teaching Homer the skill.
18. On the one hand, the gods will order Homer to send gold to the friends; on the other, crowns to the strangers in the country.
19. The deeds of the gods in the country teach the men well.
20. Will you send the brothers into battle?
21. You were ordering Homer to send books to the islands. For you were teaching the men on the islands.
22. On the one hand, the gods are dissolving wars; on the other hand, the men are sending brothers into battle.
23. The goddess will order the men in the country to send gold or a crown to the friends.

Section II

1. ἔπεμπες δῶρα ἐκ τη̃ς ἀγορα̃ς τοι̃ς θεοι̃ς νήσου.
   [also fine is παρὰ τοὺς θεοὺς]
2. ἆρα ἐκελεύσατε τὸν Ὅμηρον λυ̃σαι τοὺς πέντε ἀνθρώπους ἐν τῇ οι̉κίᾳ  ἢ οὔ;
3. παιδεύσουσιν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς λόγοις καὶ ἔργοις.
4. ἡ θεὸς νῦν κελεύει τοὺς ἓξ ἀδελφοὺς πέμπειν χρυσὸν τοι̃ς φίλοις ἐν τῇ νήσῳ.
   [one could substitute πέμψαι for πέμπειν]
   [also fine is παρὰ τοὺς φίλους]
5. τὰ δῶρα τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἔλυσεν τοὺς ἓξ ἀνθρώπους.

Answers to ‘Drill’ Questions

Section I

1. τέχναι – feminine; nominative plural or vocative plural, “arts” or “skills” (as subject or predicative nominative). Singulars for both are τέχνη.
2. ψυχήν – feminine, accusative, singular, “soul” (as a direct object). Plural is ψυχάς.
3. τεχνῶν – feminine, genitive, plural, “(of/from) arts”. Singular is τέχνης.
4. ἀγοράς – feminine?, accusative, plural, “marketplace” (as a direct object). Singular is ἀγοράν.
5. ἀγορᾶς – feminine, genitive, singular, “(of/from a) marketplace”. Plural is ἀγορῷν.
6. ψυχαῖς – feminine, dative, plural, “[by/with/to/for] souls”. Singular is ψυχῇ.
7. τέχνῃ – feminine, dative, singular, “[by/with/to/for] arts”. Plural is τέχναις.
8. χώρα – feminine, nominative singular or vocative singular, “land” or “country” (as subject or predicate nominative). Plurals for both are χῶραι.
9. ἀγορᾷ – feminine, dative, singular, “[by/with/to/for] (the) marketplace”. Plural is ἀγοραῖς.
10. τέχνας – feminine, accusative, plural, “crafts” (as a direct object). Singular is τέχνην.
11. λόγων – masculine, genitive, plural, “(of/from) words”. Singular is λόγου.
12. ἀνθρώποις – masculine, dative, plural, “”[by/with/to/for] men”. Singular is ἀνθρώπῳ.
13. ἄνθρωπον – masculine, accusative, singular, “man” (as a direct object). Plural is ἀνθρώπους.
14. λόγῳ – masculine, dative, singular, “[by/with/to/for] (the) word”. Plural is λόγοις.
15. ἔργα – neuter, nominative plural and vocative plural (“works” as subject or predicative nominative), or accusative plural (“works” as a direct object). Singular forms are all ἔργον.
16. ἀδελφοῦ – masculine, genitive, singular, “(of/from a) brother”. Plural is ἀδελφῶν.
17. λόγον – masculine, accusative, singular, “word” (as a direct object). Plural is λόγοις.
18. δῶρον – neuter, nominative singular or vocative singular (“work” as subject or predicative nominative), or accusative singular (“work” as a direct object). Plurals are all δῶρα.
19. ἀδελφοί – masculine, nominative, plural, “brothers” (as subject or predicate nominative). Singular is ἀδελφός.
20. ἔργων – neuter, genitive, plural, “(of/from) works”. Singular is ἔργου.
21. χώρας – feminine, genitive singular (“of/from a country”), or accusative plural (“countries” as a direct object). Plural genitive is χωρῶν and singular accusative is χώραν.
22. δώροις – neuter, dative, plural, “[by/with/to/for] gifts”. Singular is δώρῳ.
23. ἄνθρωπε – masculine, vocative, singular, “O man”. Plural is ἄνθρωποι.
24. ἀδελφοῖς – masculine, dative, plural, “[by/with/to/for] brothers”. Singular is ἀδελφῷ.
25. δῶρα – neuter, nominative or vocative plural (“gifts” as a subject or predicative nominative), or accusative plural (“gifts” as a direct object). All singulars are δῶρον.

Section II

1. Ὁμήρῳ, Ὅμηρον.
2. θεῷ, θεοί.
3. νήσῳ, νῆσοι.
4. βιβλίων, βιβλία.
5. τεχνῶν, τέχναις.
6. χῶραι, χωρῶν.
7. ἀγοραῖς, ἀγοράς, ἀγορᾶς.
8. ἀδελφῶν, ἀδελφούς.
9. δώρου, δῶρα.
10. ψυχαί, ψυχαῖς.

Section III

1. a) ἀδελφός, ἀδελφοῦ, ἀδελφῷ, ἀδελφόν, ἄδελφε; ἀδελφοί, ἀδελφῶν, ἀδελφοῖς, ἀδελφούς, ἀδελφοί.
   b) ἀδελφός, ἀδελφοί, nominative; ἀδελφοῦ, ἀδελφῶν, genitive; ἀδελφῷ, ἀδελφοῖς, dative; ἀδελφόν, ἀδελφούς, accusative; ἄδελφε, ἀδελφοί, vocative.
2. a) ψυχή, ψυχῆς, ψυχῇ, ψυχήν, ψυχή; ψυχαί, ψυχῶν, ψυχαῖς, ψυχάς, ψυχαί.
   b) ψυχή, ψυχαί, nominative; ψυχῆς, ψυχῶν, genitive; ψυχῇ, ψυχαῖς , dative; ψυχήν, ψυχάς, accusative; ψυχή, ψυχαί, vocative.
3. a) ἡ χώρα, τῆς χώρας, τῇ χώρᾳ, τὴν χώραν, ἡ χώρα; αἱ χῶραι, τῶν χωρῶν, ταῖς χώραις, τὰς χώρας, αἱ χώρα.
   b) χώρα, χῶραι, nominative; χώρας, χωρῶν, genitive; χώρᾳ, χώραις, dative; χώραν, χώρας, accusative; χώρα, χῶραι, vocative.
4. a) τὸ δῶρον, τοῦ δώρου, τῷ δώρῳ, τὸ δῶρον, τὸ δῶρον; τὰ δῶρα, τῶν δώρων, τοῖς δώροις, τὰ δῶρα, τὰ δῶρα.
   b) δῶρον, δῶρα, nominative; δώρου, δώρων, genitive; δώρῳ, δώροις, dative; δῶρον, δῶρα, accusative; δῶρον, δῶρα, vocative.
5. a) ἡ ὁδός, τῆς ὁδοῦ, τῇ ὁδῷ, τὴν ὁδόν, ἡ ὁδός; αἱ ὁδοί, τῶν ὁδῶν, ταῖς ὁδοῖς, τὰς ὁδούς, αἱ ὁδοί.
   b) ὁδός, ὁδοί, nominative; ὁδοῦ, ὁδῶν, genitive; ὁδῷ, ὁδοῖς, dative; ὁδόν, ὁδούς, accusative; ὁδέ, ὁδοί, vocative.

Section IV

1. The brothers.
2. On the island.
3. On [the] islands.
4. Arts.
5. To the marketplace.
6. Of the brothers.
7. The soul of the brother.
8. The soul of Homer.
9. By/with work.
10. The gifts of the brothers.
11. The gifts, the ones of the brothers.
12. The gifts to the brothers.
13. Gifts, to the brothers.
14. The gifts of the brothers, the ones for the men.
15. The gifts to the gods, the ones of the men.
16. The gifts for the brothers, the ones in the marketplace.
17. Homer teaches the brother.
    [the definite article could also be functioning as a possessive, i.e. "his brother"]
18. The brother sends the gifts to the islands.

Answers to ‘Exercise’ Questions

Section I

1. Homer teaches the man.
2. The brother of Homer teaches the man.
3. The man teaches Homer.
4. Homer teaches the men.
5. Homer teaches the men in the marketplace.
6. The brother of Homer teaches the men in the marketplace.
7. In the marketplaces, Homer teaches the souls of men by means of books.
8. The god sends a gift to the brother of Homer in the country.
9. O Homer, the goddess sends gifts to the men in the country.
10. The brother of the man sends the gifts of the gods out of the house onto the islands.
11. The man on the island sends the brothers into battle.
12. The brother of Homer sends a book from the marketplace onto the island.
13. The brother sends gifts, the books of Homer, into the houses of men.
14. The man teaches the brother by word and deed in the house.
15. The man teaches the brothers by both word and deed.
16. Brother, even in battle, god teaches the men – the brothers of Homer.
17. Gods, Homer teaches the men on the roads with his words.
18. Homer sends the gifts for the men to the road from the marketplace into the country.
19. Homer teaches even the brother by [means of] skill.
20. Homer teaches the brother in his skill by [means of] a book.
21. Homer teaches the brother the skill by [means of] books.
22. The god sends words into the souls of men.

Section II

1. ὁ θεὸς παιδεύει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους.
2. ὁ ἄνθρωπος πέμπει τὸν τοῦ Όμήρου ἀδελφὸν εἰς τὴν ἀγοράν.
3. Ἄνθρωπε, ὁ τοῦ Ὁμήρου ἀδελφὸς πέμπει τοῖς θεοῖς δῶρον ἐκ τῆς νήσου.
4. τοῖς λόγοις  ὁ Ὅμηρος παιδεύει τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἐν ταῖς νήσοις.

A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. This volume contains a multitude of essays, many of which seem to necessitate a decent grasp of not only Greek (obviously) but also linguistics. It looks like an intimidating book but hopefully I’ll manage it (and learn a lot in the process).

The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford Handbooks). I was very glad to see that there was a relatively inexpensive Kindle edition of this book available. Hopefully I’ll have time to make my way through it.

The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology by Moltmann. I’ve blogged my way through Moltmann’s first two books. Now it is time to finish the trilogy.

The City of God by Augustine. From what I’ve read of Augustine so far, I am not his biggest fan (and by that I mean not a fan at all). But it is a classic that I need to read.

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. I love science books, especially ones on quantum physics.

For fiction I shall be doing my annual read of Tolkien – The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.

I will first provide the comment discussion between Tom Verenna and myself:

Tom Verenna’s first comment to me (in which he quotes Carrier):

He is quite qualified. He writes, “Twice Ehrman says I have a Ph.D. in “classics” (p. 19, 167). In fact, my degrees are in ancient history, with an undergraduate minor in Classics (major in history), and *three  graduate degrees* (M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D.) with *four graduate majors*  (Greco-Roman historiography, philosophy, religion, and a special major  on the fall of Rome). One of those, you’ll notice, is in the *religions  of the Roman empire–which included Christianity* (and my study of  Christianity featured significantly in my dissertation work). I  shouldn’t have to explain that the classics and ancient history  departments aren’t even in the same building, much less the same major.  Although I did take courses from each and studied under both classicists and historians, and have a considerable classics background, it’s a  rather telling mistake of his to think (and then report) that I am just a classicist and not a historian, much less a certified historian of Christianity (and, incidentally, its surrounding religions, ignorance of which we have seen is Ehrman’s failing).”

My response:

Seems irrelevant to the point at hand. Learning about religions of Rome does not mean you specialize in Christian origins. If he did specialize in Christian origins, then he should have in-depth knowledge concerning more pertinent areas of knowledge e.g. Second Temple Judaism, Hebrew, Aramaic, biblical studies. However, he has revealed his staggering ignorance of such areas.

Verenna’s rejoinder:

We’ll have to disagree. You can take classes in those subjects and be formally trained without majoring in ‘Christian origins’–I’m double-majoring in Classics and Classical Languages and I’ve taken courses in religious Studies and Biblical Studies which count towards my majors. Your argument is a little presumptuous of what these majors entail and suggest you may not have first-hand knowledge of what these majors entail. If so, maybe you’re not qualified to speak on Carrier’s qualifications? =)

To which I responded:

I am not speaking about Carrier’s formal qualifications.

I am talking about the familiarity he has shown with areas of study most relevant to Christian origins.

Sure, knowledge of the religions of Rome is important. But it pales in comparison to other, more pertinent, areas of study (such as the few I mentioned in my last comment).

Perhaps Carrier did study such things as part of his majors. I don’t know. But I do know that on his blog and in his book “Proving History”, he reveals his staggering ignorance on such matters (no exaggeration). I mean, sheesh, he didn’t have the slightest clue as to what pesher was until Thom Stark schooled him on it. He couldn’t translate Daniel 9:26 to save his life. And there is a whole litany of other offenses he has committed against biblical studies.

I’m sure he is a very smart guy (his academic credentials testify to that). But when it comes to such things as early Christianity and its corollaries, he is simply out his league.

Leading to this comment from Tom Verenna:

I think you’ve missed the point entirely with his book. I appreciate your replies here, but I think the book went over your head a little. The point is to address the staggering problems in the field of historical research–including the basic concepts you lay out in your responses above. Carrier is aware of them, but he lays out the fact that for far too long arbitrary factors have played in theses about Christian origins, Second Temple Period, etc… because no one has taken into account factors which *should have been* considered before the studies in those areas were done. You may disagree with his conclusions, but his point is a valid one. Assuming this is Kevin from Diglotting, I do not approve of your polemical attacks in your review of his book either. Your other reviews have a professional feel–this one felt as though you were on the attack throughout. Maybe sensational amateurs deserve such treatment, but scholars like Carrier with strong qualifications in the field deserve more respect than that. And to be clear, I’ve defended Ehrman and James McGrath against their attackers on the same issue. Carrier and Ehrman and James deserve a level of courtesy for their work in the field, whether we agree or disagree with their arguments. It comes with earning their laurels. Those of us who haven’t should show respect.

I do not think I “missed the point entirely with his book”, but I can only leave that up to the reader to decide. Neither do I think the book went “over [my] head”. I understood the author’s thesis clearly. I am familiar with matters pertaining to early Christianity and so that is where the focus of my review was. I decided to not say terribly much about Carrier’s discussion of the math component of the book due to the fact that I am not familiar enough with this subject.

Regarding my polemics against the book. Yes, my review was definitely not in my usual style. But that is because the books I review are written by people who (even if I don’t agree with them) know the areas they are writing about. I occasionally read a book that I think is pitiful and when I do I will write a more acerbic review (e.g. see my review of Keller’s The Reason for God, I and II). If I find the book lacking, I see nothing wrong with my review being less than flattering (provided I actually say why I found the book displeasing). This is the category that Proving History falls into. I thought that a lot of what the author said concerning biblical studies was patently wrong and revealed a lack of knowledge in the area. Poor argumentation deserves no respect.

As I said in the final part of my review, even if Carrier’s Bayesian method is a brilliant new way to investigate the historical Jesus, we need someone to apply it who can deftly handle all the data. Carrier is simply not that person. Why do I say that? I don’t know but maybe it has something to do with the fact that in an attempt to conjure up a plausible reason as to why Mark didn’t really say Jesus came from Nazareth, Carrier says that maybe “Nazareth” in Mark 1.9 may just be an interpolation (which I would assume he would also apply to the usage of the word in Mark 1.24, 10.47, and 16.6). His support for this line of reasoning? None at all! It’s just a naked assertion. Additionally, in an attempt to make the Nazarite argument plausible, he makes a feeble argument pointing towards Mark 14.25 and Matt. 26.29, while conveniently forgetting to mention the more relevant pericope of Luke/Q 7.33-34 which directly undercuts it. These were just two of my gripes with Carrier’s discussion of Nazareth and I do not think they are trivial.

One thing that Carrier mentions (more than once) in the book is that, prior to when the Christian sect started, there was already existent in Judaism a stream of thought which awaited an eschatological messianic figure who would suffer and die as an atonement for sins. He even singles out the Qumran community as a specific example of this. This would be an important factor for historical Jesus studies to interact with…. if it were true. It is not. He points to a blog post of his as support for such a notion but this blog post (and Carrier’s thesis) has been thoroughly refuted. The blog post Carrier point’s to (and the subsequent war of words with Thom Stark) also reveals that he is uninformed on lots of stuff pertaining to Christian origins. Good grief, if the guy can not even translate and understand Daniel 9.26, how are we meant to seriously expect him to handle the vast amount of complicated data one must grapple with when discussing Christian origins and the historical Jesus?

Richard Carrier has great credentials. I am sure I could learn a lot from him concerning Greco-Roman historiography, the fall of Rome, and ancient science and philosophy. But when it comes to the historical Jesus, Second Temple Judaism, biblical studies, and so forth…. well, then it’s different. All I have seen from Mr. Carrier is an unwillingness and/or inability to seriously engage with scholarship in these areas. I agree with him (to a degree) as to the utility (or lack thereof) of the criteria of authenticity. However, I thought a lot of the argumentation Carrier used to rail against these criteria was very poor and was littered with gross inaccuracies. That is why I focused my review on that component of the book and why my review was quite barbed.

All in all, I found this book to be pretty mediocre. Richard Carrier states in his bio on his blog that he is a specialist in Christian origins and with this book he has tried to make a name for himself in the field. But he has failed. Abysmally. This book only goes to demonstrate Carrier’s lack of familiarity with the field he is trying to navigate.

I wasn’t convinced that Bayes’s Theorem is relevant and effectual when dealing with the complexities of historical data, and I really don’t think it is going be useful to historical Jesus research. But even if Bayes’s Theorem truly is a useful heuristic tool and a constructive approach for the study of the historical Jesus and Christian origins, we would need someone who possesses an actual understanding of the field to be able to fruitfully utilize it. This rules Richard Carrier out. He does not possess an expertise in the relevant areas of knowledge (e.g. Second Temple Judaism, New Testament, History of Religion). Thus, he lacks the knowledge required to be able to wield Bayes’s Theorem profitably and any numbers he comes up with to plug into the equation will not hold water.

The author is following this volume with a sequel which shall deal more fully with the historical Jesus (yes this book was just a prelude to whet our appetites). In an earlier part of this review I expressed my concern for how the author will be able to competently handle the composite Jesus traditions and texts. For instance, when it comes to the crucifixion of Jesus, I bet we will not see anything mentioned about how Q portrays Jesus’ death in light of Deuteronomistic theology, whereas the later Matthew instead emphasizes an expiatory nature of Jesus’ death. In fact, I could almost guarantee we wouldn’t see such a thing considering that Carrier says in this volume (pg. 139) that such a view of Jesus’ death (i.e. as an expiatory sacrifice) was not a post-hoc rationalization but something already expected by Jews (yet another example of Carrier’s fundamentalist reading of the Bible).

Furthermore, a little while later he mentions in a footnote that he is “increasingly convinced there was no Q in the traditional sense, but the designation still conceptually defines some source, even it if turns out to be Matthew or some lost Gospel”. Apart from the fact that this doesn’t make much sense (Q is the corollary to the Two-Document Hypothesis and is the material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark, so if Q “turns out to be Matthew” then you are actually talking about the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis, not the 2DH and Q), there is also the disconcerting possibility that Carrier will just wind up dismissing Q, or at least rating the 2DH and Q as being improbable, which will then make such issues (e.g. the portrayal of Jesus’ death in Q) irrelevant. This is important because if Carrier considers the initial tradition of Jesus’ death to have already been expiatory in nature, then I’m sure this will be used to increase the probability that Jesus’ death could have been created out of thin air (because Carrier wrongly believes there was already an expectation for the eschatological messiah to be executed as an atonement for sin due to his fundamentalist reading of the Old Testament). He does says that he will revisit the question of Q in the next volume, but I am not holding my breath for an in-depth and well-informed analysis.

I am hoping that the second volume will provide us with filet mignon, but Mr. Carrier is ill-equipped for such a task and will only be able to give us rump roast.

If Mark 1:9 is discounted as an interpolation (via contamination from, or harmonization with, the other Gospels, which we known to have been a frequent occurrence in their transmission), then Mark never actually said Jesus came from Nazareth. (143)

Of course, Carrier doesn’t provide any reasoning to support this verse being an interpolation, which is probably due to the fact that there isn’t any support for such an idea. But hey, why let a little detail like that get in the way. If you don’t like what a text says, just create an unnecessary conjectural emendation out of thin air and proclaim, “Interpolation!” Maybe, if we’re real lucky, Carrier will try and apply Bayes’s Theorem to New Testament textual criticism and come up with his own edition of the Greek New Testament!

Warning – Tangent Ahead: Maybe we could even apply Bayes’s Theorem to theology. I estimate a 5% chance that Mark 16.9-20 is original and thus part of the infallible Bible. Yet, when I take into account the fact that I had a friend called Mark in primary school, that I am old enough to know who Marky Mark is, and that I’ve seen Mark Ruffalo in a few movies, the odds are changed to making the ending of Mark almost certainly authentic and thus giving me an 80% probability that I could play with snakes (as per Mark 16.18) and survive a poisonous snake bite (cf. Acts 28.3-6). I like those odds.

Wish me luck!

Carrier provides a few alternative explanations as to how Nazareth came to be associated with Jesus. He says that there are “several plausible reasons why Jesus would be falsely contrived as a Nazarene” (142). As I said in part III of this review, giving a possible reason is not the same thing as providing a plausible one. Carrier anticipates this criticism by saying that, “Since no prior author mentions a connection between Jesus and Nazareth (Paul, for example, makes no mention of it), such developments are more than merely possible … these are viable possibilities, at least sufficiently probably to require us to rule them out first” (142). So since Paul makes no mention of Nazareth, the three alternative explanations he provides for the Nazareth connection are “viable possibilities”? Seems like quite a stretch, but nevertheless, even if we grant Carrier that, they are still far less probable (barring a brilliant piece of argumentation from Carrier in the next volume) than the notion that Mark is simply stating that, indeed, “Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee” (Mark 1.9).

One of the alternatives that Carrier mentions is that the Nazareth connection derives from Numbers 6 and the Nazarite vow. In discussing this option he says that, “a Nazarite vow was most typically of limited duration (a fixed number of days), consecrating oneself to God by certain rituals – most prominently, abstaining from wine (which Jesus indeed vows to do: Mark 14:25; Matthew 26:29)” (142). Yea… those Gospel references are to the last supper where Jesus says he will not drink again of the fruit of the vine. I don’t think his disciples would be terribly impressed with Jesus’ Nazarite vow if he made it the night before he was executed (at least, I doubt they would be impressed enough that they would then remember him as one who made a Nazarite vow). Perhaps a more pertinent passage for Carrier to have mentioned would have been Q/Luke 7:33-34 which depicts Jesus as one who did drink (and thus probably not someone who was under a Nazarite vow).

President Obama and McKayla Maroney are not impressed with Jesus’ Nazarite vow.

Carrier then demonstrates more of his fundamentalist reading of the Bible:

Yet Matthew even claims a Nazareth origin derived from prophecy – in fact, not the town, but the epithet, which could thus have been Mark’s source as well (see Matthew 2:23). Unless Matthew was lying, we are obliged to agree that Mark (or his source) could have had that same prophecy in mind. (144)

Carrier compares Mark’s reference to Nazareth with Matthew’s reference to Bethlehem. In other words, since Matthew wanted to have Jesus born in Bethlehem (in order to ‘fulfill prophecy’) and thus created an elaborate narrative which achieved this purpose, Mark likewise created the notion that Jesus came from Nazareth due to a (now lost) prophecy which Mark needed to be fulfilled. Note that Carrier says: “Unless Matthew was lying”!? Yes, the author of Matthew probably was lying. There was no prophecy concerning a Nazareth origin (James McGrath’s review of Proving History makes the same point). Carrier’s readiness to accept that Matthew was correct is like a fundamentalist Christian who does likewise (lest Matthew be a liar and biblical inerrancy a falsehood). But Carrier has an obvious agenda in this book and so has to clutch at whatever straw he can find, even if it includes ditching scholarship and reading the Bible like a fundamentalist.

Another display of ignorance from Carrier is his brief foray on how Mark presents Jesus speaking of “the Son of Man”. There is no mentioning of the possibility of an Aramaic Vorlage underlying the Greek phrase (ο υιος του ανθρωπου), making Carrier’s discussion on all this pretty meaningless. In a footnote he does list a few of the most recent scholarly volumes on the the issue, but evinces no real knowledge about this controversial topic. It’s like he searched Amazon for the phrase ‘Jesus Son of Man’, saw the recent volumes by Müller, Casey, Walck, Hurtado and Owen, and just threw them together in a footnote to make it look like he knows what he is talking about.

Following this is a discussion on the betrayal of Judas Iscariot (still in the context of the embarrassment criterion). In order to support a point he is making, he says: “‘Iscariot’ is (as many scholars believe) an Aramaicism for the Latin ‘Sicarius’” (154). Unfortunately, he doesn’t mention the other, more plausible, etymology of “Iscariot” (that it’s derived from “man of Kerioth”). Though he says he will deal with this again in the next volume, so maybe we will see something more substantial then.

On the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Carrier says:

The betrayal story also makes no historical sense. The authorities did not need Judas (much less have to pay him) to find or identify Jesus (Mark 14:10-11, 14:43-50). Given what Mark has Jesus say in 14:49 (and what Jesus had been doing in Jerusalem only days before), the authorities knew what he looked like, and they could have seized him any time he appeared in public. (153-54)

Yes they could have seized him in public at any time they wanted, especially if they wanted to risk a deadly skirmish. As Stephanie Louise Fisher points out in her review of Proving History, this sort of thing had occurred in the past during the time of Herod Archelaus.

Carrier then puts the icing on the cake with:

The fact that Jesus’ betrayer’s name essentially means “Jew” should already make us suspicious. (154)

The fact that Jesus’ betrayer has an extremely common name should make us suspicious?! Merciful Mother in heaven, someone buy this guy a clue. Or at least buy him the Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, part 1: Palestine 330 BCE – 200 CE (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), and point him towards pages 112-25. Judas/Judah was a common name. Why? Geez, I don’t know, maybe it has something to do with the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob being called Judah! There is nothing suspicious about Jesus’ betrayer’s name unless you’re Richard Carrier and trying your hardest to fantasize up some reason as to why the Judas betrayal story was a myth.

I think the author has been spending too much time on Fantasy Island with these two guys.

Carrier then briefly deals with other criteria of authenticity such as coherence and multiple attestation. His discussion on the criterion of Aramaic context left a lot to be desired. Why? Because he pretty much just dismisses the possibility of the Greek text of the Gospels containing any Aramaisms, saying that any would just be the result of a Semitized Greek.

The last part of this review (a brief summary) will be posted tomorrow.

The author begins with a brief look at the criterion of dissimilarity. He then launches into an approx. 45 page assessment of the embarrassment criterion, examining several Jesus traditions that have been supported as authentic due to this criterion. At one point the author says:

Quite simply, it’s inherently unlikely that any Christian author would include anything embarrassing in his Gospel account, since he could choose to include or omit whatever he wanted … In contrast, it’s inherently likely that anything a Christian author included in his account, he did so for a deliberate reason, to accomplish something he wanted, since that’s how all authors behave, especially those with a specific aim of persuasion. (134)

So an author would never include anything that could be viewed as embarassing?! Brilliant logic. I wonder if Carrier would be consistent and apply this principle to all ancient texts? Or should this piece of delicious logic only apply if it is a “Christian author”?

Carrying on from the previous quote:

… (and as we can plainly see, all the Gospel authors picked and chose and altered whatever suited them – even Mark excluded a vast amount of material found in Matthew, Luke, and John, so unless that was all fabricated after Mark, Mark left out quite a lot that would have been as available to him as it was to them). (134)

Unless that was all fabricated after Mark!? Of course a lot of it was fabricated! Sheesh. This displays the mindset of the author which I saw in a few places throughout the book: He approaches the biblical text like a fundamentalist!

A few pages later is another example of this fundamentalist approach to the biblical text (as well as his general lack of knowledge of biblical studies):

Religions frequently rally around apparently embarrassing yet entirely false myths, often in defiance of common sense. The Jews were no exception. Contrary to current assumption, the execution of their messiah was believed to have been predicted by Daniel (Daniel 9:26; even more clearly in the Greek), yet he was widely recognized as an inspired prophet of God. (137)

He restates the important part a little bit later as well:

The fact that the OT very clearly did predict the execution of the messiah (Daniel is explicit, and had already convinced the Jews of Qumran) likewise refutes Meier’s claim that OT support must have been for sought for after the fact. (139)

Carrier says that “the execution of their messiah was believed to have been predicted by Daniel (Daniel 9:26; even more clearly in the Greek)”, and that “the OT very clearly did predict the execution of the messiah (Daniel is explicit, and had already convinced the Jews of Qumran)”. Ummm, that’s the conclusion you would arrive at if you only read commentaries on Daniel by fundamentalists. If you read some more balanced literature, you will see that the “messiah” in 9:26 is Onias III. And it wasn’t understood by pre-Christian Jews as indicating that a future eschatological messiah would arrive on the scene and be executed.

Also, in a footnote to the first quote Carrier references 11QMelch ii.18 as making a connection between “the dying messiah of Daniel 9 to the suffering servant of Isaiah 52-53” and also points to a blog post of his which discusses this. No, the Qumran community did not connect a dying messiah of Daniel 9 to the suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah. Carrier is wrong about a precedent for a dying messiah being found in 11QMelch. Of course, though, a lack of precedent does not necessarily mean that no one could have invented it. The tale of an eschatological messiah dying a shameful death that was ultimately redemptive could, in fact, have been invented without prior precedent. Though saying it is possible is not the same as saying it is plausible. And Carrier has utterly failed to show that it is a plausible hypothesis.

For anyone desiring to read a thorough refutation of Carrier’s nonsense about pre-Christian Jews already having a belief in a dying Messiah, then see Thom Stark’s lengthy (and humorous) postings here, here, here, and here. If you read those links you will also see more of Carrier’s gross incompetence when it comes to biblical studies, such as when Carrier says, “I also suspect the original meaning of “Christ prince” in [Daniel 9] verse 25, otherwise a strange construction, means two people, the Christ and the Prince, since those two are then mentioned together again in verse 26.” Yes, it is a strange construction if you know nothing about Hebrew.

More to come in Part IV…

In chapter 2 the author provides twelve axioms (pp. 20-37) and twelve rules (pp. 37-39) of the historical method. Nothing terribly controversial about these except for, as the author himself admitted, the second part of the first rule which states that one must “Obey… Bayes’s Theorem”.

I will quote the second rule because not only is it a very sound piece of advice to follow, it also represents what I think is a deficiency in this book.

Rule 2: Develop wide expertise in the period, topics, languages, and materials that you intend to blaze any trails in, or else base all your assumption in these areas on the established (and properly cited) findings of those who have. (37)

I enjoy studying early Christianity. It may seem like a simple field of research to the lay person, but in reality it is complex and requires a multi-disciplinary approach. You have to deal with literary and non-literary sources: the former necessitating specialists in philology, palaeography, papyrology, and codicology; the latter covering such disciplines as epigraphy, archaeology, and numismatics. If one desires to study Christian origins then one has to study many diverse areas, from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Nag Hammadi library (and, of course, the relevant languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Coptic). When it comes to historical Jesus studies, one has to deal with composite texts and traditions. Does the author, Richard Carrier, demonstrate that he is knowledgeable in this area? We will see in Part III of this review. But first a quick overview of chapter 3.

Chapter 3 contains an introduction to Bayes’s Theorem. It is quite an informative chapter and I think the author did a pretty good job of dumbing it down for the mathematically challenged (such as myself). Of course, the author could be making horrendous mistakes in his application of Bayes’s Theorem, but since I am mathematically naïve I would not be cognizant of the fact.

In regards to the results obtained from using Bayes’s Theorem, Carrier states that we know they “are always necessarily true –if its premises are true”. What he means by ‘premises’ is “the probabilities we enter into the equation” (45). Yet as the author states, quantifying the relevant data so as to be able to input it into Bayes’s Theorem is a subjective endeavor, though he argues it is not an arbitrary one. He also says that “you must have reasons for your subjective estimates” and that “if you do have sufficient reasons, you need to ask if those reasons will be accepted by other reasonable people”. If they are, this “would then actually make them objective, since by definition objective reasons will be accessible and verifiable to all reasonable observers, who will thus all come to the same subjective estimate” (82).

Carrier seems to have high hopes concerning the ability of people to reach an agreement regarding the “subjective estimates” we should be plugging into Bayes’s Theorem. Color me a pessimist, but I am skeptical that such an agreement could be reached. As I noted in Part I of this review, it is silly to think that scholars with various ideological viewpoints would arrive at the same results by using the criteria of authenticity. The same holds for Carrier’s method of Bayesian reasoning. The different ideological stances of the people applying Bayes’s Theorem is going to generate disagreement on how to quantify all the relevant data.

Additionally, I’m curious as to how how he himself is going to quantify all the data appropriately? How is he going to handle the composite texts and traditions? Will he be able to adequately separate the primary traditions from the secondary? How is he going to deal with the multitude of issues (e.g. matters of provenance, chronology, linguistics, etc) related to the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and other Jesus traditions? How is he going to handle alternative positions on an issue? Will he simply accept the consensus and ignore any dissenting views? How is he going to work in the fact that he is not competent when it comes to Second Temple Judaism? Will it give his “subjective estimates” a large enough margin of error to make the results meaningless? I guess we will just have to wait until the second volume is released. Though from what I saw in this volume, I am not going to set my hopes up too high.

Is Bayes’s Theorem a practical and effective tool to use in historical studies or does it just provide only a veneer of rigor and logic? This is a question perhaps best left to the mathematically literate of us. I have found one review of Proving History from someone who seems relatively clued in on mathematics (I would also encourage the interested reader to read Carrier’s response to that review, as well as the great comment discussion that ensued). That same blogger also makes further posts on the subject here and here (the latter link is particularly interesting in my opinion). If anyone knows of other reviews which focus on the Bayesian reasoning of Proving of History (whether they support Carrier’s thesis or not) then drop a comment and let me know!

I will finish this part of the review with a quote from Ian’s blog post:

So, what can we learn?

Well, for one, the inputs to Bayes’s Theorem matter. Particularly small inputs. When we’re dealing with rare evidence for rare events, then small errors in the inputs can end up giving a huge range of outputs, enough of a range that there is no usable information to be had.

And those errors come from many sources, and are difficult to quantify. It is tempting to think of errors only in terms of the data acquisition error, and to ignore errors of choice and errors of reference class.

These issues combine to make it very difficult to make any sensible conclusions from Bayes’s Theorem in areas where probabilities are small, data is low quality, possible reference classes abound, and statements are vague. In areas like history, for example.

Stay tuned for Part III of this review.