Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:48 pm
Ch. 6: The Prior Probability (On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier)
Quality books. Great conversations.
https://www.booktalk.org/
etc.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.
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:Flann 5 wrote:etc.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.
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.
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.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.
After reading this thread the nicest thing I can say about Johan Ronnblom is that he is an ignorant moron.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.
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: Why don’t you stop right here and tell us what it is you believe about Jesus Christ.
Because Carrier used it. If you read my original blog post, I've explained this already, so no point repeating it here.DB Roy wrote: I mean, since Raglan wasn’t a historian, why bother with his little scale?
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: Anyone who could seriously compare the historicity of Jesus and Alexander has rocks in their head.
I happen to agree, but this does not mean any argument leading to that conclusion is sound or valid.Robert Tulip wrote:Alexander is real while Jesus is fictional.
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: As for the tortured arguments made in this thread by Ronnblom that somehow the Queen of Heaven is not the Queen of Heaven,
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."Robert Tulip wrote: that Jesus did not claim to bring a new covenant,
Matt 27:57-66, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-54.Robert Tulip wrote: that his burial place was well known