Indeed. I found that recently myself and we’ve corresponded.

There are actually quite a lot of Bayesian studies in history now, many of which cite and build on my work. I will have a bibliography of the ones I found in my next book. But it can’t hurt to send me any you find, in case they include any I missed.

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/etd/article/2259/

It’s a master’s thesis that applies your Bayesian methodology to investigating the historicity of the Buddha.

But more than that, every source tradition that even covers the Hannibalic War mentions Hannibal by name, and although Appian, Dio and Valarius Maximus certainly used Polybius as a source, there’s reason to think there were numerous other lost sources who would have mentioned Hannibal.

Not to mention the massive archaeological evidence of the widespread destruction evident in southern Italy (as Toynbee covered), in a war called in the sources the ‘Hannibalic’ war. Are we to assume that the entire Hellenistic world simply made up the Punic commander? (not to mention the archaeological evidence you outlined).

Compare that to the gospels and the epistles, where we only have a single source tradition (which is so much more problematic than Livy or especially Polybius, even Appian is superior) and doesnt name either a more contemporaneous source or any oral sources. The closest thing to an eye witness is Paul who never claims to have met anyone who knew Jesus, depending on how you translate one comment made by Paul concerning a “brother of the lord”.

It seems like you spend a lot of time debating lay people, It must be frustrating.