tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post673489846779586089..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Is Jesus a Rank-Raglan Myth-Hero? (Or is Carrier a Scholar-Legend?)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-89289017276423729052015-07-23T08:48:01.062-07:002015-07-23T08:48:01.062-07:00@Loren
How do you not see the deceptive trickery ...@Loren<br /><br />How do you not see the deceptive trickery that Richard Carrier is doing with the RR scale? Don't you see that the scale is not a method of determining historicity of a person but is a method of determining what narratives have in common? Since that's the case, then this argument from a scale dating back 100 years ago is nonsensical and irrelevant to the probability of said person existing.<br /><br />Jesus could rank the highest score and still have a high probability of existing in the past. You can't reason by taking thousands or millions of non-historical figures, place them on a scale, and then put Jesus at the top, and say "Well because mythological figures tend to score the highest, therefore, Jesus will be a myth". That is a non-sequitur and absurd because the question of historicity must be answered by using historical methods and reasoning. And on top of that, you can do the same thing with other historical figures who actually rank higher than Jesus(Sargon I) and make the same argument. In the end it's just all tomfoolery and I'm not falling for it. Real historical reasoning takes time and effort and critical skills.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-6413824926860232832014-08-19T20:52:45.800-07:002014-08-19T20:52:45.800-07:00Don: Thanks, but it doesn't really matter for ...Don: Thanks, but it doesn't really matter for my argument, and I don't really care. It is up to Richard Carrier to make his own argument clear, and what he does make clear is that he demands strict interpretation of the criteria. But some say he misrepresents the original in some ways, changing them to make his argument work better. It would have been best if he had quoted the original verbatim, and worked from that, to keep his argument clear and honest. It is not up to Carrier's readers to figure these things out for themselves. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-52540580332031430282014-08-19T08:21:10.723-07:002014-08-19T08:21:10.723-07:00If you want to understand what Lord Raglan meant b...If you want to understand what Lord Raglan meant by king you need to read his book and look at his examples. Zeus became king of the gods in the mythical kingdom of Mt. Olympus. Apollo likewise becomes king in a supremely mythical domain. There are many examples of metaphorical kingdoms cited by Raglan. Apollo is ruling over art, music and medicine for example.Don Whartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11874733311091724239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1931481460530764632014-08-13T04:45:38.929-07:002014-08-13T04:45:38.929-07:00Yeah, Richard does a lot of that, even while prete...Yeah, Richard does a lot of that, even while pretending to bend over backwards for "the other side." Best I recall, he doesn't justify the individual choices at all -- there are huge lacunai in his argument here. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-76516291426477192552014-08-13T01:45:18.685-07:002014-08-13T01:45:18.685-07:00"Hi Paul, interesting point. However, if the ..."Hi Paul, interesting point. However, if the standards are that loose whereby anything can be used to justify any criteria, then wouldn't that make Rank and Raglan's criteria and scores even less reliable and useful?"<br /><br />Yep, I tend to agree. For the purposes of identifying a common hero pattern, it might not matter, but it obviously raises problems if you then try to conclude something about historicity from this. <br /><br />Playing devil's advocate, I suppose you could argue that these details arise in different sources because there were no "real" historical details to relate, but it would be easy to show that heroic stories attach themselves to real figures too, e.g. Rank uses Cyrus the Great as an example of the hero pattern.<br /><br />More problematically, Carrier seems to have tweaked a couple of Raglan's criteria, making them more Jesus like. E.g. Raglan has "the body is not buried", whereas Carrier (if quoted accurately above) has "the body turns up missing". I've not yet read Carrier's book, so I don't know what justification he gives for this, but "not buried" and "turns up missing" do not mean the same thing.Mr Regnierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111869149091924130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-33450625425956568892014-08-12T23:29:51.818-07:002014-08-12T23:29:51.818-07:00Hi Paul, interesting point. However, if the standa...Hi Paul, interesting point. However, if the standards are that loose whereby anything can be used to justify any criteria, then wouldn't that make Rank and Raglan's criteria and scores even less reliable and useful? In general one would have to treat each source as a separate case and score it as is in order to maintain some rigor and see where some elements could have been added or removed. <br /><br />Now if its just about the narratives themselves (not bearing at all on historicity), then there is no issue, but Carrier is using Rank and Raglan as measures for historicity in some sense. For that you would have to find the best source and go off of it only. It would be the least one that has been "tampered" with presumably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-85710864322310050142014-08-12T16:50:10.228-07:002014-08-12T16:50:10.228-07:00"Is it "rigorous" to jump from one ... "Is it "rigorous" to jump from one book to another, because one early source gives you a better result (20, in the case of Matthew, allegedly) than another?"<br /><br />As folklorists, Rank and Raglan were more interested in bodies of literature than individual sources. If you follow their approach, then it's OK to consider features in any text that might match the criteria, regardless of whether they are canonical or non-canonical, early or very late. Mr Regnierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111869149091924130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79778527990625011122014-08-05T23:46:55.536-07:002014-08-05T23:46:55.536-07:00Hmm... Well we can experiemnt with Raglan on the r...Hmm... Well we can experiemnt with Raglan on the reverse with clear fictional characters, would they score high as is expected? Ranking heroes like Spider-Man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Forrest Gump, Optimus Prime, Benjamin Button, Elmer Fudd, Rambo, Carmen Sandiego, Indiana Jones, Marty McFly, Napoleon Dynamite, Uncle Sam, Huckleberry Finn, etc yields low scores. Elasticity would be needed to force them to fit where they obviously don't. Should we believe they were real historical people? Clearly if a method is good it should work on positive cases and negative cases well, no? Consilience.<br /><br />A Clasicist scored others including Harry Potter who got an 8 on the scale.<br /><br />http://department.monm.edu/classics/Courses/Clas230/MythDocuments/HeroPattern/HarryPotter.htm<br /><br />Just thought it was interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-20432059978393861112014-08-05T09:42:09.309-07:002014-08-05T09:42:09.309-07:00The relatively undramatic part of Jesus Christ'...The relatively undramatic part of Jesus Christ's career is between his starting being a religious leader and his last days. Those last days were certainly dramatic, I will concede, and some of that drama fits Lord Raglan's profile very well.<br /><br />I've scored several recent heroes, and I've found them to have low scores compared to mythical people. George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Muammar Khadafy.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-27796830946032028732014-08-05T02:32:15.210-07:002014-08-05T02:32:15.210-07:00Loren: The word Richard uses is "rigor."...Loren: The word Richard uses is "rigor." It is far from rigorous to discredit historical figures by appeals to exact language, then just throw out your high score for Jesus when it does not fit your own exact language, without a WORD admitting that fact, or explaining why you are now suddenly cool with taking words elastically. That is bad scholarship, and not being terribly honest with your readers to boot. <br /><br />Jesus' career was "relatively undramatic?" Are you joking? Which chapter in which gospel lacks such drama that it would make the rest of your life pale by comparison, were you to experience it? <br /><br />Please remember that I am critiquing an argument by Richard Carrier, here. I personally assign little importance to RR, in and of itself. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-28621396903852427852014-08-05T01:52:52.636-07:002014-08-05T01:52:52.636-07:00David Marshall, I think that you are being too lit...David Marshall, I think that you are being too literal-minded about Lord Raglan's hero profile. I suggest that you try scoring various legendary heroes with your sort of scoring and see what happens. With the literal-mindedess you are using here, you'll force down a lot of people's scores. You can also look for Lord Raglan's book The Hero and see how he did his scoring. He typically used the most legendary version for his scoring, if I recall correctly.<br /><br />His mother a royal virgin? Royal if one of the Matthew-Luke genealogies apply to her, virgin, yes. Father a king? An uncrowned one, because Matthew and Luke make such a big issue out of his Davidic descent. Matthew vs. Mark on his childhood? Mark starts out with Jesus Christ fully grown, and the first thing in it is his getting baptized without much incident.<br /><br />As to defeating an enemy, he certainly made the Devil give up on tempting him. As to being a king, he was a great religious leader with lots of followers, so his "kingdom" was a virtual one instead of some territory. Late in his career, he concedes that he can indeed be called King of the Jews.<br /><br />His career was relatively undramatic, mostly preaching and working miracles and arguing with Pharisees without major strife. As to laws, his teaching are indeed laws in a general sort of sense, and he even takes on some existing Old Testament laws.<br /><br />I concede that he doesn't marry a princess. Speculations about Mary Magdalene are extracanonical, and she was a commoner without much distinction.<br /><br />As to being repudiated and dethroned, consider what the people of Jerusalem do about him, from giving him a hero's welcome to being a lynch mob. Also, Peter disowns him and Peter and his fellow disciples flee.<br /><br />Something neglected by Lord Raglan is prophecy. Lots of legendary heroes fulfill various prophecies, often despite various efforts to thwart them. Jesus Christ fits *very* well.<br /><br />Compare well-documented heroes of recent centuries. Some have what might be called noble or royal birth, but many of them are descended from commoners, and very obscure ones at that. Nobody tries to kill them in their infancy, and nobody has any idea of their future careers.<br /><br />They often inhabit their "kingdoms" for all of their lives, without ever getting exiled. Some of them get into power by defeating enemies, while many of them don't. They sometimes have very dramatic careers, it must be said. Repudiation is not very common. Tsar Nicholas II, President Richard Nixon, President Mikhail Gorbachev, and leader Muammar Khadafy are the most notable examples. Quietly retiring or dying in office without being repudiated are much more common.<br /><br />As to their deaths, dying of old age is common, and some of them died in the opposite of a hill: Nicholas II's basement, Adolf Hitler's bunker, and Muammar Khadafy being found in a storm drain. Which legendary hero has spent his last moments cowering in a cave or a dungeon?<br /><br />Abraham Lincoln's supposed high score is a facetious scoring that I haven't found anywhere. A serious scoring of him gets more like 6. He was the son of undistinguished commoners, and he lived in his "kingdom" all his life. He also was never repudiated, but instead killed by a disgruntled Confederacy supporter.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-44881420811110479512014-07-31T11:47:49.352-07:002014-07-31T11:47:49.352-07:00After reading your review I really feel sorry for ...After reading your review I really feel sorry for Sheffield Phoenix Press, the "Scholars" who reviewed this book prior to publication and Richard Carrier for the precious six years he wasted on this project.Denish Sebastianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02568412752993843308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-73308504633683737012014-07-29T00:07:45.255-07:002014-07-29T00:07:45.255-07:00Thanks, gents, that helps. I had heard that Hones...Thanks, gents, that helps. I had heard that Honest Abe was a myth, but was resisting the report; I guess this puts a rap on it. Machen also predicted that scholars would become so bewildered by the gospels that they would be forced into mythicism, as I recall. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40654239523270832622014-07-28T17:55:33.494-07:002014-07-28T17:55:33.494-07:00J. Gresham Machen published the Virgin Birth of Ch...J. Gresham Machen published the Virgin Birth of Christ in 1930. In it he argued that contrary to what is often supposed, Christ was alone or almost alone in having a virgin birth. Others had unusual births or supernatural births, but not virgin births. If right, this knocks out one of Carrier's criteria.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15589068803309555248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-80109766314590839472014-07-28T11:45:41.494-07:002014-07-28T11:45:41.494-07:00Very well written. It will be amusing to see what ...Very well written. It will be amusing to see what happens in the near future to all the atheists who have put all their eggs in the Carrier basket.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-40680286627326953082014-07-27T10:23:34.363-07:002014-07-27T10:23:34.363-07:00Wow. Very good post. Excellent use of the Rank-Rag...Wow. Very good post. Excellent use of the Rank-Raglan scale on Jesus. You raise very good points to consider on how elastic the scale is and also how elastic one needs to be with the sources to make Jesus score high. Of course, Francis Lee Utley used Raglan's scale on Abraham Lincoln and he scored a 22 out of 22 so the whole scale is questionable and unreliable. The Rank-Raglan scale only looks at the biographies and gauges that, but it does not address the historicity of the person in question. It cannot determine that factor at all, as Folklorist Alan Dundes has shown.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com