• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 647 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 12:47 am

Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

#143: Jan. - Mar. 2016 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3507 times
Been thanked: 1310 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Carrier introduces us to the Rank-Raglan Hero Typology. This was developed by Otto Rank and Lord Raglan. Carrier puts it to excellent advantage. The hero-type consists of 22 distinctive characteristics or features:

1. The hero’s mother is a virgin.
2. His father is a king or heir of the king.
3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual.
4. He is reputed to be the son of a god.
5. An attempt is made to kill him as an infant.
6. To escape, he is spirited away from his would-be killer(s).
7. He is raised in a foreign land by at least one foster parent.
8. We are told nothing of his childhood.
9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom.
10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king.
11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e. without wars or national catastrophes).
12. He prescribes laws.
13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects.
14. He is driven from the throne or city.
15. He meets with a mysterious death.
16. He dies atop a hill or high place.
17. His children, if any, do not succeed him.
18. His body turns up missing.
19. Yet he still has one or more holy sepulchers (in myth or reality).
20. Before taking a wife or the throne, he battles and defeats a great adversary (such as a king, giant, dragon, beast or devil).
21. His parents are related to one another.
22. He marries a queen or princess related to his predecessor.

In addition, these hero is also a miracle-worker (either in life or in death) or were preexistent beings incarnated as men (and occasionally as women) and were regarded as saviors or savior-gods. Moreover, they prophesied or themselves fulfilled prophecy or both.

Any personage who scores over half of these is not historical. There are 15 personages who do score more than half:

1. Oedipus (21)
2. Moses (20)
3. Jesus (20)
4. Theseus (19)
5. Dionysus (19)
6. Romulus (18)
7. Perseus (17)
8. Hercules (17)
9. Zeus (15)
10. Bellerophon (14)
11. Jason (14)
12. Osiris (14)
13. Pelops (13)
14. Asclepius (12)
15. Joseph, son of Jacob (12)

Carrier points out that if it were possible that many real persons could possess more than half of the Rank-Raglan hero-type traits (even only attributed to them) then the number of real persons on the list should far outnumber those of mythical personages since there are far more real persons to choose from than mythical ones. We are talking a ratio of hundreds of millions of people since antiquity versus a few thousand mythical personages and, yet, there are NO historical persons are on the list—none—and yet ALL 15 heroes on the list above were TREATED as historical by writers over the centuries. Jesus, as we see and contrary to all Christian assertion, was nothing unique and would have been as factional as the others on the list. Prior probability of the non-historical nature of Jesus then tells us that the odds of one human making the list of the 15 heroes while the rest are mythical is too high to seriously entertain.

But a high prior probability is not the final conclusion, that’s what posterior probability does. Prior probability is the probability that calculates odds based on what we expect to find based on common knowledge. If that probability is high, that indicates there is little evidence to bring to bear on the case that will make the posterior probability appreciably different from the prior probability. Carrier goes through a number of ways to calculate the prior probability of the historicity of Jesus Christ and it always works out to 33% no matter you slice and dice it. That’s an upper limit, I should point out. The lower limit is around 6%.

A low prior probability indicates that Jesus would not be historical BUT evidence can be injected into the argument to raise the posterior probability. For example, if I say Abraham Lincoln is historical, the prior probability is going to be high because, even without evidence, we know that there was an Abraham Lincoln. Adding in the evidence of Lincoln’s existence is not going to raise the posterior probability much higher. Conversely, saying that Lincoln was not historical will have a low prior probability. We must introduce evidence to back the claim that Lincoln is fictional and there is none. Hence the posterior probability will not rise and the conclusion, then, is that Lincoln was historical. So in order to raise the posterior probability of the historicity of Jesus would require the introduction of evidence because 33% is not nearly high enough as a posterior probability much less 6%.

Next, we’ll examine what constitutes evidence and how it works.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:Carrier introduces us to the Rank-Raglan Hero Typology. This was developed by Otto Rank and Lord Raglan. Carrier puts it to excellent advantage. The hero-type consists of 22 distinctive characteristics or features:

1. The hero’s mother is a virgin.
2. His father is a king or heir of the king.
3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual.
4. He is reputed to be the son of a god.
5. An attempt is made to kill him as an infant.
6. To escape, he is spirited away from his would-be killer(s).
7. He is raised in a foreign land by at least one foster parent.
8. We are told nothing of his childhood.
9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom.
10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king.
11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e. without wars or national catastrophes).
12. He prescribes laws.
13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects.
14. He is driven from the throne or city.
etc.

Do you actually follow the arguments on these threads D.B.? Apparently not. Just to remind you, though you obviously couldn't be bothered to read the link in the first place,here it is again.
http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

I know you would like to think so, but that won't make it so. Keep on trusting the great prophet Richard Carrier pbuh.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
DB Roy wrote:Carrier introduces us to the Rank-Raglan Hero Typology. This was developed by Otto Rank and Lord Raglan. Carrier puts it to excellent advantage. The hero-type consists of 22 distinctive characteristics or features:

1. The hero’s mother is a virgin.
2. His father is a king or heir of the king.
3. The circumstances of his conception are unusual.
4. He is reputed to be the son of a god.
5. An attempt is made to kill him as an infant.
6. To escape, he is spirited away from his would-be killer(s).
7. He is raised in a foreign land by at least one foster parent.
8. We are told nothing of his childhood.
9. On reaching manhood he returns to his future kingdom.
10. He is crowned, hailed or becomes king.
11. He reigns uneventfully (i.e. without wars or national catastrophes).
12. He prescribes laws.
13. He then loses favor with the gods or his subjects.
14. He is driven from the throne or city.
etc.

Do you actually follow the arguments on these threads D.B.? Apparently not. Just to remind you, though you obviously couldn't be bothered to read the link in the first place,here it is again.
http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

I know you would like to think so, but that won't make it so. Keep on trusting the great prophet Richard Carrier pbuh.
For those who didn't look at another one of these links that StarFlAnt is endlessly digging up hoping to score points that tries to make Alexander a Rank-Raglan hero. I don't know where he gets this stuff. Here's what Wiki says about that:

Otto Rank, in 1909, developed a Hero pattern on that was very much based on Oedipus's legend, followed Freudian thought in that the pattern lingered on the Hero's relations with the parents and was limited to the first half of the life of the Hero:[2]

Child of distinguished parents
Father is a king
Difficulty in conception
Prophecy warning against birth
Hero surrendered to the water in a box
Saved by animals or lowly people
Suckled by female animal or humble woman
Hero grows up
Hero finds distinguished parents
Hero takes revenge on the father
Acknowledged by people
Achieves rank and honors
Lord Raglan, in 1936, developed a 22 point myth-ritualist Hero archetype to account for common patterns across Indo-European cultures for Hero traditions, following myth-ritualists like James Frazer and S.H. Hooke:[2]

Mother is a royal virgin
Father is a king
Father often a near relative to mother
Unusual conception
Hero reputed to be son of god
Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
Hero spirited away as a child
Reared by foster parents in a far country
No details of childhood
Returns or goes to future kingdom
Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
Becomes king
For a time he reigns uneventfully
He prescribes laws
Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
Driven from throne and city
Meets with mysterious death
Often at the top of a hill
His children, if any, do not succeed him
His body is not buried
Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs
When Raglan's 22 point outline is used, a Hero's tradition is considered more mythical the more of these traits they hold (a point is added per trait). Raglan himself scored the following Heroes: Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points), Dionysos (19 points), Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), Moses (20 points), Elijah (9 points), Watu Gunung (18 points), Nyikang (14 points), Sigurd (11 points), Llew Llawgyffes (17 points), King Arthur (19 points), Robin Hood (13 points), Alexander the Great (7 points).[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank-Raglan_mythotype

So as we see, Alexander scores only 7 points. Less than half and therefore doesn't qualify. And why not? Because he was historical. No one--NO ONE--scoring over half--NOT ONE OF THOSE RANKED--is historical. I don't know what else I can say. But here is what Neil Godfrey has to say as he dismantle's StarFlAnt's blogger (pbuh):

JohanRonnblom’s web article is a great tool for anyone looking for ammo to fire at Carrier.
But it is also a fallacious application of the Raglan elements as anyone who has read Raglan’s book in full (not just the section where he does point counts on a range of mythic figures) — or even my own post above that attempts to alert others to the main points Raglan makes — would know.

Not that anyone who is predisposed to kick Carrier would care about that.

Johan has fallen into the fallacy of reading the elements as listed in their 22 points literally — divorced from the context of his theoretical explanation in the book. He has extended this fallacy to the other sections of Raglan’s book where he dot-points against certain mythic names — again a section that is referred to by Johann without any deeper grasp of what it’s all about — something only understood by reading the rest of Raglan’s thesis.

Jesus’ tale is structured around Christian rituals (baptism, healing, eucharist) and details in the narrative are readily explicable with reference to those rituals and that immediately sets Jesus as a potentially valid Raglan hero-type candidate. If you read Raglan’s book you’d know why — as I point out in my post, too.

Johan, unfortunately, has “applied Raglan’s ‘criteria’ loosely” (they are not really “criteria” but elements and there is a significant difference) when it comes to Alexander — so loosely, in fact, that he has applied them in violation of the spirit and intent of Raglan’s own thesis. He has looked for technical literal applications divorced from contextual meaning that has any significance in the larger story theme (e.g. supposedly being raised in a far country). But in the case of Jesus Johan is literal to the extent of being divorced of Raglan’s intended meaning and application in reverse (e.g. not being buried — Raglan’s own examples should have alerted Johan to his misapplication here; but even more to the point, Raglan’s theoretical explanation and understanding of the elements would have given him a quite different perspective on how to apply the elements according to Raglan’s thesis).

But I don’t expect any of this to make any difference to anyone who loves to kick Carrier anyway.

Neil Godfrey
2014-12-02 20:50:03 UTC - 20:50 | Permalink
I have been more explicit in a second post there. Copied here:
Specifics: Read Raglan’s book to get a clear idea of the theory behind the elements (not literal or legal ‘criteria’) of a mythic-ritual narrative:
1. The hero’s mother is a royal virgin:

Jesus qualifies by analogy with Raglan’s own applications to specific examples. (See my post and R’s book.) Mary in the myth is also descended from David and a virgin. Alexander’s mother is not a virgin when she conceived by the god.

2. Father is a king:

See Raglan’s own theoretical explanation and his own application. Jesus being son of God more than qualifies him a zillion times over on this point.

3. Often a near relative:

Again for same reasons as above by Raglan’s own explanation and examples Jesus qualifies. Mary and Joseph are of the same Davidic line. Raglan’s explanation and application should warn anyone from being hung up over the word “near” in the dot-point to which this element has been reduced for short-hand summary.

4. Unusual conception circumstances:

Np.

5. Reputed to be son of a god:

Np.

6. Attempt on life at birth:

Np.

7. Spirited away:

Np.

8. Reared by foster parents in far country:

Again for reasons as above — Jesus certainly qualifies – in the myth he is son of god reared on earth by foster parents. Alexander does not, contrary to Johann. Macedonia was his home kingdom.

9. Nothing about childhood:

Luke only addresses one incident on eve of Bar Mitzvah (not technically childhood). This sort of detail is characteristic of myths — one detail is singled out to demonstrate his superiority and intimate his destiny. So get with Raglan’s theoretical basis.

10. At manhood returns….:

Jesus is always said to be leaving his home to begin preparations for his kingdom; this is proleptic of his final secondary leaving Galilee to Jerusalem to claim his glory. Understand the principle — the Christian myth is a transvaluation of current myths. It qualifies over and over. That’s not tweaking. It’s having read and understood Raglan — as well as the practice of mythical transvaluations in the Greco-Roman era.

11. Victory over dragon etc:

Jesus does this at the outset of his ministry with the devil. This is proleptic of his future conquest of the devil on the cross prior to his ascension to glory. Jesus fits perfectly. Alexander taming his wild horse is contextually irrelevant.

12. Marries princess:

Alexander’s subsequent marriage is irrelevant contextually. Read the book.

13. Becomes king:

Read the book. Being hailed king qualifies as surely as being technically crowned — though Jesus is crowned in the larger myth.

14. Reigns uneventfully:

Jesus’ reign is uneventful. There is coronation, a long wait, then his judgment. Understand the context of mythic-ritual. Ditto proleptically after Jesus is hailed king.

15. Prescribes laws:

Jesus does so. It’s his mission. His laws replace those of Moses. No body of law is attributed to Alexander in the way Raglan discusses this element. It’s about “creating” a new body of laws to which the person is etiologically linked as the founder.

16. Loses favour with gods and men:

Np.

17. Driven from throne and city:

Jesus is taken from Jerusalem to die. This is a fundamental part of the myth — and mythic-ritual drama.

18. Mysterious death:

Jesus qualifies. Alexander doubtful — not according to Raglan’s theoretical explanation.

19. On top of hill:

Jesus qualifies, Alexander doesn’t (contra Johan).

20. Children do not succeed him:

Np.

21. Body not buried:

Read the book and see how Raglan himself applied this. Jesus’ body not being found after burial qualifies 100% according to Raglan’s own theoretical explanation and practical applications. A body not being found is what it’s all about.

22. Sepulchres:

This is tied necessarily to 21 so Johan’s point is misguided.

http://vridar.org/2014/11/29/significan ... -to-jesus/

Good day.
JohanRonnblom
Eligible to vote in book polls!
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:53 pm
7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

I was asked to respond to this post, even though it is old.

First, about Raglan's ranking of Alexander. Here is everything he wrote about Alexander: "It may be added that although several of the incidents are such as have happened to many historical heroes, yet I have not found an undoubtedly historical hero to whom more than six points can be awarded, or perhaps seven in the case of Alexander the Great." [Raglan: The Hero, a study in tradition, in In Quest of the Hero, p147] (my emphasis on the part dealing with Alexander)

Raglan was not an historian and using him as some sort of definitive authority on scoring Alexander is not serious, especially considering Raglan only mentions him in passing and provides absolutely no justification for this scoring. In contrast, I have scored Alexander meticulously with sources for each statement.

Now, an overarching point about 'intended meaning'. The mythotype is called the Rank-Raglan mythotype, and this already should make us wary about such claims. Because while Rank and Raglan arrived at strikingly similar criteria, they perceived very different 'intended meanings' behind the myths. While Rank was a Freudian psychoanalyst trying to divine hidden truths about our subconscious from these ancient legends, Raglan is a folklorist trying to prove that folklore is not really folkish at all but just variations of eternal themes reflected in royal ancient rituals.

But we are discussing something based on Raglan's scale, so perhaps we should look for his 'intended meaning', ignoring Rank completely? Very well, but this is not so easy as Godfrey claims. As has been concluded by so many, including Carrier [for instance, Chapter 1 of Proving History], there is really no agreement on the intended meaning of the Jesus legends, so how would we be able to score Jesus in this way without everyone ending up with their own mostly subjective result?

But let's look at the criteria (yes they are 'elements', but for the purpose of scoring, which is what we are doing here, they are criteria):

1. The hero’s mother is a royal virgin
As for Raglan's applications, I already discussed it in my original blog post. If Mary (according to a much later tradition) was a most distant descendant from David, that does not make her royal. Because if it does, most people would be royal! As for Alexander's mother, yes she very much was, see sources in my blog post. Carrier agrees with me on this point "...lightning from heaven, striking the virgin mother Olympias...".

2. Father is a king
If the father being a god qualifies Jesus, element 5 becomes moot. But no, the point of element 2 according to Raglan is that the hero is of royal birth, while element 5 derives from some hypothetical ancient ritual where the human husband-to-be takes a ritual form of a god in a wedding ceremony [In Quest.., pp. 148..].

3. Often a near relative

Godfrey must have read a very different explanation and examples than I have. Raglan thinks that this alludes to the royal custom of marrying siblings. In his own examples, only near relatives are counted. I repeat, there is no instance of a distant relative used by Raglan.

5. Reputed to be son of a god

I score the same as Godfrey here, but note that if we use 'intended meaning' we should probably disqualify Jesus, because the intended meaning of Jesus being the son of God is really that he *is* literally the son of the Hebrew god, not that Joseph took part in a ritual where he dressed up as Yahweh. But, here we run into so many problems of divining intentions behind ancient legends that we probably lose all hope of reaching any kind of objective scoring.

6. Reared by foster parents in far country

Godfrey is in error, I do not count this for Alexander, although a much better case can be made for him than for Jesus. Godfrey's claim that Jesus' 'far country' is Earth is very imaginative, and illustrates the problem with trying to find 'intended' meanings: there is literally no limit to what you can imagine to get the desired outcome! Raglan argues that the element alludes to a tradition where sons of kings were raised by other kings. Clearly Mary, who was according to the Bible a very biological mother of Jesus, and Joseph, regardless of their eventual heritage, were not providing a royal family of this kind.

9. Nothing about childhood

While I score this for Jesus on the basis of using only Matthew, Godfrey ignores the Infant Gospel of Jesus, which becomes a huge problem if we want to use more sources for Jesus.

10. At manhood returns

Excuse me, where is Jesus 'always said' to be leaving his home? According to Raglan, the journey is part of passing a test for becoming king. You can't just wave your hands and say Jesus qualifies because at some later point he went to Jerusalem. If you want to look at 'intended meaning', you can't just ignore that Raglan is very clear that this is about qualification.

11. Victory over dragon etc

Once more, this victory is about getting qualified to be king. Since Jesus never becomes king this requires some squinting, but clearly the closest equivalent is his baptism by John, which in the gospels increasingly take on the form of a coronation. It is only after this event that Jesus has a chat with Satan in the desert. According to Raglan, the victory may be magical, but it always has the hero performing some feat: making rain, finding his way out of a maze, guessing a riddle etc. Jesus' encounter is of a very different kind, not showing an act of accomplishment but rather a virtue of character (turning down the temptations of earthly power). And most clear of all, it is no part of a story about qualifying for some sort of kingship. Rather, the 'indended meaning' of that encounter is that Jesus has not come as a ruler of the Earth, is not an actual king, does not have or seek ruling power, but appears as a leader in spirit only.

Alexander's taming of Bucephalos, on the other hand, clearly has all the elements Raglan intended. Bucephalos is, in Raglan's terms, a 'celebrated animal'. And the intended meaning of the story is obviously to show that Alexander, before he reached the throne, was uniquely qualified.

12. Marries princess
Perhaps I need to recap what Alexander does: after having defeated the Persian king Darius III, Alexander marries his daughter Stateira II. As Raglan points out, the marrying of the princess, daughter of the previous king, is a helpful but not sufficient criteria for becoming rightful ruler. He must also possess power. If Godfrey finds some other 'intended meaning' of Raglan where this marriage is not an excellent fit, I am really curious.

13. Becomes king

Here I wonder if we have read different books. Raglan is very much presupposed with actual kings, and the rituals and traditions related to real, Earthly kings with subjects and territory. If we are talking about the 'larger myth', where - after his second coming - Jesus becomes king, well then we have enormous problems with getting almost any other elements to fit, because at this point Jesus is most certainly not out of favour with God or his subjects, or ever going to die etc. We really need to decide what story we are scoring.

14. Reigns uneventfully

If we interpret the baptism as the coronation, then really where is this 'long' or 'uneventful' period before Jesus' judgement? If not, what other event would be his coronation? Again, we need to be really innovative to come up with an interpretation of such a long, uneventful period. I dare say there is not a single legendary or real human that we could not coerce to become a perfect Rank-Raglan hero by allowing for such contortionism.

15. Prescribes laws

Godfrey's assertion that Jesus' laws replace those of Moses is indeed a standard Christian interpretation - but it is a modern one, not found in the Gospels, where this is explicitly denied. Of course, we can score some expanded legend about Jesus where we include these beliefs. But this creates massive problems with other aspects of the story. Again, we must decide on what we are scoring. Carrier set out to score according to the Gospel of Matthew, so that is the focal point of my examination. As for Alexander, Godfrey should read the Plutarch passage I link to, written over 400 years after Alexander's passing: "Although few of us read Plato's Laws, yet hundreds of thousands have made use of Alexander's laws, and continue to use them."

17. Driven from throne and city

There is no story in the gospels about Jesus being taken from Jerusalem, and indeed modern myth places his place of execution just outside the wall of Jerusalem. But of course, Jerusalem is not even Jesus' city to begin with! And if we are talking about Jesus' future kingdom, well then Golgatha like all of Earth is well inside it.

19. On top of hill

Godfrey provides absolutely no argument here. As for Raglan, he likens the hill to a funeral pyre. The hill where Alexander died certainly has that form and can easily be associated with a pyre, but the Golgatha - only much later imagined as a hilltop - not so much.

21. Body not buried

I'm just shaking my head here. In the Gospels, Jesus' place of burial is very much known, completely contrary to Raglan, his examples, or his theorizing. If we are instead talking about Jesus' disappearance, well then that too is well accounted for in the Gospels. Moreover, if we are only interested in 'disappearance', we must score for Alexander, since his body was snatched away. I have not done so because the fuzziness introduced by introducing our own criteria from the parts of Raglan that we like or dislike makes the exercise completely futile - everyone will get the result they were already convinced they would get.

22. Sepulchres

Again, we can absolutely introduce Jesus' sepulchres, but we need to add much later legends than the Gospels. This creates a lot of problems, which is presumably why Carrier did not do this.

In summary, I think a big part of the problem is that Godfrey (and probably Carrier) implicitly use modern interpretations of the Gospels, forgetting that they were supposed to score the ancient legend. But the ancient legend was much different, as stated literally as well as in 'intended meaning'!
Last edited by JohanRonnblom on Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Yeah it's so strange.

Some people read a story about a virgin born son of God walking on the water and raising the dead doing miracles and rising from the grave and just think that it sounds like mythology, outrageous!

I mean what's wrong with them, it is obviously history, I mean how can they just reject Jesus as saviour of the world.

How can they live without Jesus, satan must have deceived them.
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

I was asked to respond to this post, even though it is old.

First, about Raglan's ranking of Alexander. Here is everything he wrote about Alexander: "It may be added that although several of the incidents are such as have happened to many historical heroes, yet I have not found an undoubtedly historical hero to whom more than six points can be awarded, or perhaps seven in the case of Alexander the Great." [Raglan: The Hero, a study in tradition, in In Quest of the Hero, p147] (my emphasis on the part dealing with Alexander)

Raglan was not an historian and using him as some sort of definitive authority on scoring Alexander is not serious, especially considering Raglan only mentions him in passing and provides absolutely no justification for this scoring. In contrast, I have scored Alexander meticulously with sources for each statement.
Why don’t you stop right here and tell us what it is you believe about Jesus Christ. I mean, since Raglan wasn’t a historian, why bother with his little scale? Far beneath you, wouldn't you agree? Besides, I never read his book so I really can't engage you on it. Godfrey didn't really think you did either and, funny, but you never claim to the contrary. Moreover, you are all over the place in your explanations which do nothing to clarify your position. Are you saying you believe in the Infancy Gospel as an accurate account of the childhood of Jesus? That's a Gnostic account discovered in 1945 in the Nag Hammadi collection. This collection has books that say Jesus survived the crucifixion and Simon of Cyrene took his place on the cross. You really want to go there? Are you saying it's okay to mix Gnostic writings with the standard Christian ones?? That's not going to go over well with the Christians here.

So, lets forget about Rank-Raglan (your response is directed at Mr. Godfrey anyway and, to my knowledge, he is not here) and just tell us whether you believe Jesus Christ is historical and give a thorough listing of why you believe it. Really, that's it. Quite simple. Lay it out for us.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DB Roy wrote:JohanRonnblom’s web article is a great tool for anyone looking for ammo to fire at Carrier.
But it is also a fallacious application of the Raglan elements as anyone who has read Raglan’s book in full (not just the section where he does point counts on a range of mythic figures) — or even my own post above that attempts to alert others to the main points Raglan makes — would know.
After reading this thread the nicest thing I can say about Johan Ronnblom is that he is an ignorant moron.

Anyone who could seriously compare the historicity of Jesus and Alexander has rocks in their head. Alexander is real while Jesus is fictional. You need heavy dogmatic blinkers to be unable to see this simple historical observation. Ronnblom's line of thought comes from the parallel universe that imagines God created the world 6000 years ago.

As for the tortured arguments made in this thread by Ronnblom that somehow the Queen of Heaven is not the Queen of Heaven, that Jesus did not claim to bring a new covenant, that his burial place was well known, anyone who can make such statements with a straight face is an ignorant moron.

Flann's use of "Praise Be Upon Him" as an alleged comparison between Richard Carrier and Mohammed is highly offensive to logic. Islam is a backward dogma, while Carrier applies rigorous evidence and reason to examine the actual history of religion, in ways that faithful morons still try to suppress.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
JohanRonnblom
Eligible to vote in book polls!
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:53 pm
7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

DB Roy wrote: Why don’t you stop right here and tell us what it is you believe about Jesus Christ.
As I wrote on my blog years ago, I'm about 90% certain that Jesus never existed as an historical person. Most likely, he started out as a teacher or messenger whom influential leaders in the proto-Christian sect claimed to appear in their visions. The Gospels are religious fables, never intended as history, but rather to convey deeper religious truths (according to the writers, not according to me). This is apparent from the style of writing, and also from the fact that the Gospel authors obviously had no problem changing around details large and small about the supposed life of Jesus. That works for fables, not for history.
DB Roy wrote: I mean, since Raglan wasn’t a historian, why bother with his little scale?
Because Carrier used it. If you read my original blog post, I've explained this already, so no point repeating it here.

Finally, I would recommend that you'd try to be a little nicer, unless your purpose is to scare away all sane and civilized people from this board.
JohanRonnblom
Eligible to vote in book polls!
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:53 pm
7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: Anyone who could seriously compare the historicity of Jesus and Alexander has rocks in their head.
With that attitude you are disqualifying perhaps 99% of all the experts on this subject. Now, I happen not to be in that group, which you would know if you read what I wrote before going into insult mode.
Robert Tulip wrote:Alexander is real while Jesus is fictional.
I happen to agree, but this does not mean any argument leading to that conclusion is sound or valid.
Robert Tulip wrote: As for the tortured arguments made in this thread by Ronnblom that somehow the Queen of Heaven is not the Queen of Heaven,
Today sometimes, but this is a modern tradition, not found in the Bible. Again, we need to decide what it is that we score. Is it the combined myths about Jesus known to modern Christians, or what is found in the Gospels, or something else? Carrier uses the Gospel of Matthew, and argues that making comparison with modern beliefs is not useful. I agree with Carrier on that point. Also, it does not matter if we give Mary that title, because Raglan was not interested in titles, but rather that the hero's mother conveyed real power to the hero through his heritage.
Robert Tulip wrote: that Jesus did not claim to bring a new covenant,
Matt 5:17-18 "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished."

But we are not talking about a 'covenant'. Raglan is interested in the development of a body of laws, not some spiritual tacit agreement. There is simply no such body of laws associated with Jesus. Beyond the 'golden rule', which is a philosophical principle, legally useless, there are only a few cases of Jesus sayings that can be interpreted even as moral guidance, and I'm not aware of anything that could pass for a law, much less a whole body of laws.
Robert Tulip wrote: that his burial place was well known
Matt 27:57-66, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-54.

I probably need to point out to you that it was well known in the story, obviously I believe this story is fiction through and through. I'm not really sure you understand what the discussion is even about.
Post Reply

Return to “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt - by Richard Carrier”