Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[ruby sparks]

Mythology can grow up around people *very* fast -- even when they are still alive.

Er, that would presumably be a people then. Not sure what your point is.

Myths typically, though not always, involve characters whose origins are obscure compared to the first recorded date of mention.

There are exceptions, of course, but for example most if not all of the other characters on Carrier's list have this feature.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now we've got ruby with the 'aw shucks' approach. Y'know...'Give it a break, guys, we all know he existed....your evidence of non-existence is weak.' What is it with these lame apologists? What is the big frickin' deal if Jesus just happened to be a mythic construct? Does it interfere with anybody believing in Jesus Christ as their personal saviour? No.

I did not say that 'we all know he existed'. It's possible he didn't.

Actually, I think I made a specific point of criticism about Carrier's analysis. If you want to respond to that, that would be cool.

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus being a fabrication matters because of all the problems and horrid actions and conflict done in the name.

It is not hard to see how the Christian mythology evolved. Look at the original Frankenstein and Dracula stories morphed into all the variations thru today. Human imagination is boundless. Consider the evolution of alien visitors. It started when a pilot saw something he called flying saucers around Mt Rainier. Funny how people began seeing flying saucers.

I watched a show on History Channel making a case for ET appearing in the bible and South American cultures.

Looks like Jesus was an ET.

 

[lpetrich]

So what? Are you saying that mythology can emerge only very slowly? Mythology can grow up around people *very* fast -- even when they are still alive.

Er, that would presumably be a real person then. Not sure what your point is.

There are cases like Ned Ludd and John Frum, where we don't know who the historical original was -- if there was one at all. The article  Ned Ludd is rather noncommittal on that legendary Luddite's existence.

Jesus scores on Ralgan's item for 'Father was a king' because Joseph was an 'uncrowned king'. Lol.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke make a big fuss about how he is descended from King David, and that's what counts.

 

[ruby sparks]

There are cases like Ned Ludd and John Frum, where we don't know who the historical original was -- if there was one at all. The article  Ned Ludd is rather noncommittal on that legendary Luddite's existence.

There are always exceptions. Point is, if most mythical characters have obscure origins back in the mists of time compared to the earliest attestations then this is a relevant factor and one that Carrier leaves out of his 'probabilities'. It applies to most if not all of the others on his list.

It isn't hard to find this out about myths. Google 'lists of mythological figures'. It's also in many definitions of the word myth and made it onto the introduction to the wiki page on Myths: "Most myths are set in a timeless past before recorded time or beginning of the critical history." or 'have a setting is a previous proto-world' (Folklorist Mary Magoulick).

Jesus scores on Ralgan's item for 'Father was a king' because Joseph was an 'uncrowned king'. Lol.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke make a big fuss about how he is descended from King David, and that's what counts.

His Father wasn't a king. That is the criteria. Sorry. Giving him a full point is ropey. As is giving him a full point for 'reigning uneventfully'. Arguably also 'becoming a king' since there is arguably a difference between being a failed and unofficial claimant with some supporters and actually becoming king. Perhaps even 'prescribes laws' about which the assessment you linked me to says, 'His teachings qualify as laws in an informal sort of sense' yet still gives him a full point. Why even a partial score for 'raised by foster parents' and 'Royal (virgin) mother'?

This informs Carrier's 'strongest' probability calculations? Really?

Plus, even Ralgan, apparently, admitted his 22 criteria were arbitrarily chosen in the first place.

Where?

"Dundes noted that Raglan himself had admitted that his choice of 22 incidents, as opposed to any other number of incidents, was arbitrarily chosen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank-Raglan_mythotype

 

[Learner]

During the time of the Israelites (before the land of Judah) ; through a persons father you became an heir. To be an heir of the Jewish lineage, it would be through the mother.

Either way Jesus wins.

 

[ruby sparks]

During the time of the Israelites (before the land of Judah) ; through a persons father you became an heir. To be an heir of the Jewish lineage, it would be through the mother.

Either way Jesus wins.

That wouldn't explain why he's scored for both. A full point for 'king' dad and half a point for 'royal' mum.

 

[Learner]

 

[none]

not sure what was being argued....

 

[steve_bank]

Mythicists simply refuse to recognize the thoroughly Jewish nature of the New Testament. They are thus a relic of the old days of Bible scholarship.

From what I read the symbology is mostly Greek. The word Christ in the original language can be lined to the Greeks.

In Greek mythology Christ would be a demigod. In Jewish tradition any physical representation of god, or a man claiming to be son of god would be serious blasphemy. In the story it was a foregone conclusion he would be executed by or for the Jewish establishment.

 

[lpetrich]

There are always exceptions.

How convenient.

Point is, if most mythical characters have obscure origins back in the mists of time compared to the earliest attestations then this is a relevant factor and one that Carrier leaves out of his 'probabilities'. It applies to most if not all of the others on his list.

I don't see how this is supposed to be a big issue. Most of Lord Raglan's profile is intrinsic. Date of attestation is extrinsic, the opposite.

So we have an interesting conundrum. Why do Jesus Christ's biographies make him seem like someone who lived centuries before when he allegedly did?

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke make a big fuss about how he is descended from King David, and that's what counts.

His Father wasn't a king. That is the criteria. Sorry. Giving him a full point is ropey.

Even though he lived as a commoner, his royal ancestry was nevertheless an important issue. Why might that be?

Curiously, he's made out to be reproductively cuckolded by the Holy Spirit. Although Jesus Christ could have been like the legendary hero Theseus, someone with two biological fathers whose semen mixed.

As is giving him a full point for 'reigning uneventfully'.

JC didn't have a lot of drama in his career as a religious leader, at least compared to the two ends of his life. What would you consider big drama? Arguing with Pharisees? Denouncing them?

Arguably also 'becoming a king' since there is arguably a difference between being a failed and unofficial claimant with some supporters and actually becoming king.

Only if one is too literal-minded about being a king. "Great leader" seems good enough, and it fits.

When scoring JFK, does one count against him that being US President is not quit being a king?

Perhaps even 'prescribes laws' about which the assessment you linked me to says, 'His teachings qualify as laws in an informal sort of sense' yet still gives him a full point.

His teachings include instructions on what to do and what not to do -- which is what laws are.

Why even a partial score for 'raised by foster parents' and 'Royal (virgin) mother'?

Jesus Christ's parents fled with him to Egypt. His mother was his biological mother, while his "father" was essentially a stepfather, but one that gave him claim to Davidic descent. Also, Mary doesn't have anything notable about her, except if one interprets one of the Matthew-Luke genealogies as referring to her. But JC is her first or only child, something typical of legendary heroes, something that made Lord Raglan come up with the virgin bit.

Plus, even Ralgan, apparently, admitted his 22 criteria were arbitrarily chosen in the first place.

Where?

"Dundes noted that Raglan himself had admitted that his choice of 22 incidents, as opposed to any other number of incidents, was arbitrarily chosen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank-Raglan_mythotype

I think that he wanted something manageable, so he used what seemed like the most important sorts of incidents.

 

[lpetrich]

Richard Carrier has proposed some additional criteria:

• Prophecy fulfillment
• Supernatural elements
  • Miracle-working
  • Pre-existing before conception
  • Being worshipped as a savior god

I've scored several people with Lord Raglan's profile, and I find it very striking that well-documented heroes almost always score *very* low. Someone once scored Russian Tsar Nicholas II as 14, in the lower reaches of mythical heroes, but that is *very* unusual.

George Washington: 6, Napoleon Bonaparte: 8, Abraham Lincoln: 6, Charles Darwin: 5, Winston Churchill: 5, Adolf Hitler 4, John Fitzgerald Kennedy 7 (8), Muammar Gaddafi 6 1/2.

Let's look more closely at LR's profile.

A lot of high achievers in recent centuries have very undistinguished ancestry: commoners or minor aristocrats. There is also not the faintest hint that they are on the way, unlike many legendary heroes, heroes who often have prophecies of their coming. These prophecies then become fulfilled often despite efforts to thwart that fulfillment.

The next big incident is someone trying to kill the baby hero. That is very common -- and that does not happen with any well-documented ones. Did some hard-like royalists try to kill the baby George Washington? Did some Southern plantation owners try to kill the baby Abraham Lincoln? Did some fundamentalists try to kill the baby Charles Darwin? Did a conspiracy of rabbis, Jewish bankers, and Jewish Marxists try to kill the baby Adolf Hitler? Did some psychiatrists try to kill the baby Lafayette Ronald Hubbard? Did some oil-company executives try to kill the baby Muammar Gaddafi?

 

[lpetrich]

Next is coming to power. For well-documented people, it's sometimes inheriting the job, something very undramatic. Winning an election is more dramatic, but still rather weak. Likewise for backroom deals. For big drama, one needs a coup d'état or a conquest.

Departing from power is a mixed bag for well-documented heroes. Like many legendary heroes, Nicholas II, Richard Nixon, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Muammar Gaddafi were repudiated, but that is not a very common fate of well-documented ones. They often retire with full honors (Winston Churchill), die while still reigning, either of natural causes (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) or of assassination (JFK), or get overwhelmed by other nations (Napoleon, Hitler). Both Napoleon and Hitler had diehard supporters who supported them until they were dissuaded by the prospect of defeat.

As to dying a mysterious death, that is what large numbers of people believe about JFK. So it's interesting that his biography has become Raglanized in that fashion.

As to dying in an elevated location, I can only think of Abraham Lincoln in the theater where he had been assassinated. We sometimes see the opposite: Nicholas II (in a building basement), Adolf Hitler (in a bunker), and Muammar Gaddafi (not long before, he was hiding in a storm drain). Which legendary heroes spent their last moments cowering in caves or dungeons?

 

[steve_bank]

I had forgotten the fact. In antiquity it was not unheard of for someone seeking power to have agents spread a prophesy and then appear to fulfill it. In one of the histories I read on Islam, the practice was known in the time of Mohammed.

 

[ruby sparks]

How convenient.

It's a relevant factor, not taken into account in probability assessment. What is the point of saying, 'well this or that feature has a prior likelihood of such and such, so it will factor in' and not this one? Sloppy maths, apart from anything else. Listing exceptions doesn't help when it's probabilities under consideration.

I don't see how this is supposed to be a big issue

I don't see how it can not be an issue. What is arguably the primary feature of most mythical characters (so much so it's in many definitions) was left out of consideration.

Most of Lord Raglan's profile is intrinsic. Date of attestation is extrinsic, the opposite.

And? It's not entirely a matter of what is or isn't on one person's list of criteria. It's just a relevant feature not taken into account. Carrier can't be expected to change the criteria on someone else's list. That such a list gives a figure with unusually recent attestations by the standards of ancient history a much higher score than Oedipus and Zeus, for example, just makes the use of the list a bit questionable for calculating accurate probabilities.

It's arguably one thing for Ralgan, who wasn't formally qualified in any relevant way, to make an incomplete list of criteria about myths, but Carrier is a trained historian. For a historian not to take something like ' degree of contemporaneousness for written attestations' into account is very questionable. As I said before, Carrier accepts that at least a number of the Pauline Epistles were probably written in the 50's AD. Nor does he go in for extensive interpolations.

Also interesting to note that Jesus scores 18.5 on the assessment you linked me to, but goes up to 20 on Carrier's list. Carrier is shoehorning Jesus onto the template even more than others. I strongly suspect Carrier is to some extent assuming a conclusion and then working towards it.

 

[ruby sparks]

"Great leader" seems good enough, and it fits.

That is silly. You're aware that even in the very biased 'Acts of the Apostles' he's awarded approximately only 250 followers in a Jewish population of around 600,000?

Methinks you are confusing later developments regarding the perceived reputation and importance of certain figures with likely events at the alleged time. Even other Jewish Messianic claimants of the time had greater support. Josephus cites 400 for 'The Egyptian Prophet' and a 'great many' for Theudas (both of whom, incidentally, have much less attestation that Jesus but are generally considered to have existed). All these figures were minnows, even among their own people. Unless you want to swallow some of the exaggerations that permeate the writings of what was a tiny band of cult followers, just because he got famous afterwards.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's how giving points to both seems to work. There are discrepancies between the geneaologies of Jesus (in Luke and Mathew), just as there are for Adam in the OT (similar to how the OT also has two different creation stories). One way out of this for the more conservative christian scholars is to suggest, somewhat tenuously, that one list is for Joseph and one is for Mary. That way, belief in the accuracy of the gospels can be rescued.

So, what has happened is that some atheists such as the one responsible for the Ralgan-assessment linked to, possibly seduced by the admittedly attractive thesis that the figure Christians worship might not even have existed, have readily taken on board and co-opted, when 'calculating' Ralgan Criteria, the arguably poor excuses for inconsistencies in the stories used by the faithful. That's how low the standards of Jesus Mythicism among atheists sometimes goes, imo.

For me, setting aside the question of whether he existed or not (which he or may not have done), the big problem is that supposedly rational sceptics often seem to fall for dodgy means of assessment. This, amongst other things, gives the religious the opportunity to snigger at them behind their backs and accuse them of inconsistency. Not that that should necessarily matter. But I personally just like the rigour of the standards I use for being a rational sceptic and would rather keep them intact.

Jesus mythicism is a meme, originally created (not entirely unreasonably) by a small minority of nervous Christian scholars, and for some odd reason, atheism has been the place where the baton has been taken up (don't ask me why) and what is by any reasonable standards a fringe theory now thrives on atheist internet forums. Having been in discussions on several of such forums over the years, I have to say that a lot of the time, I wouldn't blame intelligent Christian onlookers for sniggering. A large slice of the general content on the forums is not much more than full-blown indulgence in conspiracy theorising.

 

[whollygoats]

Hey, ruby. You might be a little more convincing if you'd learn to spell 'Raglan'.

I know why Christians snigger at such suggestions....because they cannot laugh maniacally in public. Like anybody here would care about what Christians thought of the speculations, any way. They have already chosen to believe complete and utter bullshit, so their opinion is pretty worthless. You, however, seem to think that pointing out that the clueless christians might be snickering at credible postulations is somehow worthy of mention....doesn't that worry you, some how?

 

[lpetrich]

I don't see how it can not be an issue. What is arguably the primary feature of most mythical characters (so much so it's in many definitions) was left out of consideration.

But why does JC score so high? If you disagree, then show from the Gospels that JC ought to have a much lower score. Be sure to do so with criteria that give other legendary heroes high scores, like using the most mythical variant. For instance, consider how Zeus visited Perseus's mother Danae and made her pregnant with him. The most mythical variant is that he turned himself into gold powder and that he let himself fall into Danae's dungeon while in that form. A less mythical variant is that Zeus bribed Danae's guards to get in. In antiquity, some people advocated that theory: Euripides Danae and Dictys: Introduction, Text and Commentary - Ioanna Karamanou - Google Books

That such a list gives a figure with unusually recent attestations by the standards of ancient history a much higher score than Oedipus and Zeus, for example, just makes the use of the list a bit questionable for calculating accurate probabilities.

What's your point? That he cannot have a high score because he supposedly lived so recently relative to his chroniclers? That's a dumb argument.

Also interesting to note that Jesus scores 18.5 on the assessment you linked me to, but goes up to 20 on Carrier's list. Carrier is shoehorning Jesus onto the template even more than others. I strongly suspect Carrier is to some extent assuming a conclusion and then working towards it.

Then why not assess RC's evalulation?

 

[ruby sparks]

But why does JC score so high?

Shoehorning, imo. Plus, the selection of criteria are arbitrary and missing one rather important one, so much so that if you go to for example the wiki page on almost any character from ancient history whose existence is felt to need justification, it's not invariably one of the first considerations. Plus it's on other lists of criteria which define myths, and in many basic definitions too.

What's your point? That he cannot have a high score because he supposedly lived so recently relative to his chroniclers? That's a dumb argument.

No, it might be a dumb argument, if I was making it. But hey, thanks for assuming I am and then answering. Do you have a lot of imaginary conversations?

Clearly, he could have a high score, partly because the Raglan (thanks whollygoats) scale is arguably not even a measure of probability of existence in the first place, which makes it unimpressive to me that you said it was the strongest of the probability calculations. If it were a probability calculation, then Napoleon could be awarded a 36.4% probability of not existing and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia 63.6%!

My point is that if one is assessing prior probabilities, then leaving out at least one central feature that would affect the score is questionable.

Then why not assess RC's evalulation?

Why? I already think the 18.5 score on the one you linked to is way overdone. That Carrier jacks it up to 20 is hardly likely to be more convincing.