Rank, Raglan, Freud, a Texas Sharpshooter, and Jesus

[Bertie]

So, this use of a Rank-Raglan hero class in arguing against a historical Jesus has bothered me for a while, but until now I haven't been able to give a good explanation as to just what's wrong. Well, maybe I still don't have a good explanation, but at least I have an explanation that follows below.

Now, I admit up front I haven't read Rank or Raglan. So anyone better acquainted with these authors feel free to correct these following facts or observations, gathered second hand, or add additional ones:

• Rank wrote first
• Rank explicitly discussed and used Jesus substantially in his work
• Rank is heavily indebted to Freud
• Raglan was influenced by Rank
• I do not find much use of the Rank-Raglan hero in professional scholarship; its main use seems to be in atheist apologetics and maybe introductory textbooks.

The first problem is to observe that the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy appears to be in place here — Jesus was used to develop the idea of a Rank-Raglan hero class in the first place, and now people are saying that Jesus fit the hero class so developed. Well, duh — if you don't separate data used to form a hypothesis from data used to test a hypothesis, that's the kind of thing that always happens.

The second problem is that the circumstances of the Rank-Raglan hero-class's development and its current place in scholarship give one to wonder whether the "parallels" that make up are actually meaningful parallels (else, we're just in Lincoln-Kennedy parallel territory). Freudianism is, of course, a totally overthrown system, a pseudoscience even, and if any of the justifications for the Rank-Raglan hero class depends upon it, then those justifications would have to be established on sounder grounds or put aside as un-demonstrated. Furthermore, what seems to me to be a lack of present-day scholarly interest in the Rank-Raglan hero class counts against its credibility as a reference class for what wants to be a scholarly, scientific argument against a historical Jesus.

So, while I kind of think there might be some basically solid thinking at the core here — Jesus seems to be more like the myth people who probably never existed than like real people like Alexander who might have had some mythical accretions — I'm still skeptical whether trying to quantify that with Rank-Raglan is really a step forward. If sufficiently undermined, the Rank-Raglan framework may no longer be the justified as the best available reference class (for those who think this sort of reasoning is useful and proper to the Jesus question at hand). And, uh, in Carrier's work the next best reference class (based on Messiah-like figures in Josephus) happens to be one that would swing the dial heavily toward Jesus historicity.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not completely convinced.

(1) "I do not find much use of the Rank-Raglan hero in professional scholarship"

(2) "Freudianism is, of course, a totally overthrown system, a pseudoscience even, and if any of the justifications for the Rank-Raglan hero class depends upon it, then those justifications would have to be established on sounder grounds or put aside as un-demonstrated."

... does this matter? (does it seem like it "depends" on Freudianism? Well maybe it doesn't...)

The "Texas Sharpshooter" thing is the best argument here.

[Thor]

So, this use of a Rank-Raglan hero class in arguing against a historical Jesus has bothered me for a while, but until now I haven't been able to give a good explanation as to just what's wrong. Well, maybe I still don't have a good explanation, but at least I have an explanation that follows below.

Now, I admit up front I haven't read Rank or Raglan. So anyone better acquainted with these authors feel free to correct these following facts or observations, gathered second hand, or add additional ones:

• Rank wrote first
• Rank explicitly discussed and used Jesus substantially in his work
• Rank is heavily indebted to Freud
• Raglan was influenced by Rank
• I do not find much use of the Rank-Raglan hero in professional scholarship; its main use seems to be in atheist apologetics and maybe introductory textbooks.

The first problem is to observe that the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy appears to be in place here — Jesus was used to develop the idea of a Rank-Raglan hero class in the first place, and now people are saying that Jesus fit the hero class so developed. Well, duh — if you don't separate data used to form a hypothesis from data used to test a hypothesis, that's the kind of thing that always happens.

My personal experience related to this, is with Jung and his archetypes. And the magnificent Joseph Campbell and his work. But I guess there are some thematic similarities and a shared framework of some sort.

Although I am curious to how you understand such framework in itself argues against a historical Jesus figure. There is no necessary reason to argue against some historical figure as backdrop. The problem is what do you end up with when the myth is stripped away. And more importantly, what historical or relevant figure would you have left without the myth.

Now I am not that familiar with Rank & Co. So I am not sure about their foundation for constructing a "Hero" framework. But the archetypes of Jung and work of Professor Campbell are influenced by a much broader historical "Hero" worship as shared human cultural trait. Where Jesus by far is regarded as foundation for such framework. Yes, many elements seem to fit such framework. But Jesus being regarded as "Hero" equal to "Heroes" before and after him would best be labeled as taking it way to far.

So, while I kind of think there might be some basically solid thinking at the core here — Jesus seems to be more like the myth people who probably never existed than like real people like Alexander who might have had some mythical accretions — I'm still skeptical whether trying to quantify that with Rank-Raglan is really a step forward. If sufficiently undermined, the Rank-Raglan framework may no longer be the justified as the best available reference class (for those who think this sort of reasoning is useful and proper to the Jesus question at hand). And, uh, in Carrier's work the next best reference class (based on Messiah-like figures in Josephus) happens to be one that would swing the dial heavily toward Jesus historicity.

The difference between Jesus and Alexander does not end up as question about myths being a part of their stories. But that regardless of how much you remove of Alexanders mythical image, you end up with one of the most relevant and influential historical people this world have ever seen. Remove mythical image surrounding Jesus and you pretty much end up with average Joe.

That is why I do not understand how some historical Jesus figure is regarded as having importance of some kind. Because it is the myth, the broader message of the myth, that is of value. And when it comes to looking at Carrier`s work in relation to "Hero" worship and such framework. His political ideological beliefs force him to reject anything that can be connected to the evil "patriarchy". Unfortunately there are some who still cling to the "blank slate" myth, and believes the human psyche reflects only what is programmed. and not what biology already have determined. As if the signs and symbols that we understand as semiotics which lies at the core of human society and interaction is controlling who we are, and not merely expression of who we actually are. You see, all human behavior no matter how good or bad is human behavior. Humane/inhumane is the belief in moral progression stolen from Thomas Aquinas, forwarded by Hegel, and adopted as part of the faith system known as political ideology.

If you wonder where I am going with this. I am simply stating that the biological animal that roamed the planet before the early signs of human civilization as we understand it. Is the same biological animal as we are today. A bird knows the purifying qualities of water as it cleanses feathers and remove parasites. We write wonderful stories about the same knowledge, thinking that our understanding came from a different source than the bird. As the birds only act on instinct, we act on truths revealed to us by God/gods. If there is one thing we know, it is there being no such thing as a psychological instinct driven shared human framework. As if we were some kind of chimps.

[JohanRonnblom]

I think you make an interesting point about the risk of Texas sharpshooting, I've made a similar conclusion and argued it strongly. I largely share your conclusion about the use of the Rank-Raglan class. However since I've studied it quite a bit I think I can clear a couple of misconceptions.

Raglan was influenced by Rank

I don't think this is known to be true, or even likely to be. Rank wrote in German and does not appear to have been translated, and Raglan makes no references to him. Also, while Rank included at least one known historical figure (Sargon) and one at the time universally assumed to be historical (Jesus), Raglan explicitly argued that his scale fit only non-historical heroes. It's called the Rank-Raglan hero not because Raglan in some way based his scale on Rank, neither because it is some sort of hybrid (it is Raglan's scale) but because later scholars noticed the similarity to Rank's work and since he published first it is thought that his contribution should be honoured. Raglan's criteria seem unlikely to be shoehorned for Jesus, since Raglan was clearly quite a conservative and it seems implausible that he would have wanted to cast doubts on the historicity of Jesus.

So I don't think Raglan's criteria are a case of Texas sharpshooting, although I do think their application by mythicists often are. Also, while I don't think the freudianism by itself discredits the classification in any way, in my opinion the classification is quite sloppy and imprecise. I've done a detailed scoring of Jesus (link below) and my conclusion is that Jesus simply does not score remarkably well unless you 'tweak' the criteria or are very generous in your scoring. In the end I lean strongly towards mythicism but I do not believe the Rank-Raglan classification does anything to advance that case.

http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

[GakuseiDon]

I don't believe that Jesus was virgin-born and the Son of God. So I don't see how a prior possibility for such a mundane Jesus can be calculated using a scale whereby the person is supposed to be virgin-born and a son of God. I've gone through Carrier's OHJ and he seems to conflate a historical Jesus with a 'Rank-Raglan'ized Jesus in his analysis.

It's strange to see the Rank-Raglan scale being used by Carrier to determine a prior probability for a historical Jesus when he describes his 'minimal historical Jesus' on page 34 as:

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
3. This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod).

IIUC Carrier's main point is that few to none historical people conform to the Rank-Raglan scale above a certain score (half or above of all criteria, p 229), so this provides input into a prior-probability. Just not sure that the logic holds. For example, does the Rank-Raglan scale have anything to say about the prior probability of Carrier's 'minimal historical Jesus' above? Or can it be used only on the complete legends that have developed around a person or myth? In other words, is the minimal Jesus irrelevant to the R-R scale?

[GakuseiDon]

So I don't think Raglan's criteria are a case of Texas sharpshooting, although I do think their application by mythicists often are. Also, while I don't think the freudianism by itself discredits the classification in any way, in my opinion the classification is quite sloppy and imprecise. I've done a detailed scoring of Jesus (link below) and my conclusion is that Jesus simply does not score remarkably well unless you 'tweak' the criteria or are very generous in your scoring. In the end I lean strongly towards mythicism but I do not believe the Rank-Raglan classification does anything to advance that case.

http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

That's a good article, JohanRonnblom.

[Bernard Muller]

1. An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
2. This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.

Gakuseidon, that's a good point you made here.
If Carrier accepts that, as the minimal Jesus of historicists, then he would have to admit that Jesus do collect very few points (or any) on its Rank-Raglan scale. And the many points from the aforementioned scale he put for Jesus are not about that minimal Jesus, but about what was put later by Christians on him in the gospels.
So the Rank-Raglan scale does not put that minimal Jesus in the super hero category, it is the gospels which did it.
I have a webpage on Carrier Rank-Raglan scale for Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.info/102.html

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

I have posted on Vridar recently an explanation of the significance of the 22 Rank-Raglan hero-class elements and how to use (and not to use) them : The Rank-Raglan Hero-Type (and Jesus).

Raglan's book is available online and as far as that author is concerned the hero-class had nothing to do with classifying Jesus as a starting point.

I address some of the fallacies in the way people apply the hero-class.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about it. One can't just take "son of a god" or "father was a king" etc and apply them literally without understanding the point of the type in the first place. There is a meaningful theory behind the hero-types that relates to mythic rituals.

It's also a fallacy to think that one can decide or rule out historicity entirely on a type-count alone. The idea that there is some significance in the number differences against similarities is another common fallacy though I don't discuss that one -- simply understanding the principles and theory (as well as grasping the logic of any comparison) is enough to see through that misconception.

My post is too long to post here but here are some of the key points:

The first thing that needs to be clear is that Lord Raglan has drawn these parallel motifs from what he terms “genuine mythology” — meaning “mythology connected with ritual”. That excludes mythical tales of the King Arthur sort. Raglan is interested in myths that appear to have been associated with ancient rituals as acted out in dramatic shows (e.g. the Dionysia, May Day rituals, Passion plays) and religious ceremonies. The sorts of myths under examination should be clear from the following words in chapter 13 of The Hero:
The theory that all traditional narratives are myths—that is to say, that they are connected with ritual—may be maintained upon five grounds:

• That there is no other satisfactory way in which they can be explained. . . .
• That these narratives are concerned primarily and chiefly with supernatural beings, kings, and heroes.
• That miracles play a large part in them.
• That the same scenes and incidents appear in many parts of the world.
• That many of these scenes and incidents are explicable in terms of known rituals.

Common errors in using the 22 points

Often discussions of Raglan’s 22 characteristics of the myth-hero falter for the following reasons:

1. Discussions are often about counting points and deciding the historical or non-historical likelihood of a figure according to a number total. --- Raglan makes it clear, however, that the numbers alone do not address something else that is far more important for assessing someone’s historicity.
2. Discussions very often fail to account for the real meaning or significance of the 22 characteristics. --- They therefore make assessments based on the letter rather than the spirit of mytho-types.
3. Discussions centre around the truncated list form of the 22 points. --- As a consequence the full meaning of some of those points is lost and discussions go awry on misunderstandings.

1. When historical persons are on the list

. . . . . . . .

What is more important than the numbers, however, is understanding

• why so few historical persons score more than six or seven points
• and why even their higher scores make no dint in their established historicity

[maryhelena]

I think you make an interesting point about the risk of Texas sharpshooting, I've made a similar conclusion and argued it strongly. I largely share your conclusion about the use of the Rank-Raglan class. However since I've studied it quite a bit I think I can clear a couple of misconceptions.

Raglan was influenced by Rank

I don't think this is known to be true, or even likely to be. Rank wrote in German and does not appear to have been translated, and Raglan makes no references to him. Also, while Rank included at least one known historical figure (Sargon) and one at the time universally assumed to be historical (Jesus), Raglan explicitly argued that his scale fit only non-historical heroes. It's called the Rank-Raglan hero not because Raglan in some way based his scale on Rank, neither because it is some sort of hybrid (it is Raglan's scale) but because later scholars noticed the similarity to Rank's work and since he published first it is thought that his contribution should be honoured. Raglan's criteria seem unlikely to be shoehorned for Jesus, since Raglan was clearly quite a conservative and it seems implausible that he would have wanted to cast doubts on the historicity of Jesus.

So I don't think Raglan's criteria are a case of Texas sharpshooting, although I do think their application by mythicists often are. Also, while I don't think the freudianism by itself discredits the classification in any way, in my opinion the classification is quite sloppy and imprecise. I've done a detailed scoring of Jesus (link below) and my conclusion is that Jesus simply does not score remarkably well unless you 'tweak' the criteria or are very generous in your scoring. In the end I lean strongly towards mythicism but I do not believe the Rank-Raglan classification does anything to advance that case.

http://ronnblom.net/is-jesus-a-rank-raglan-hero/

Thanks for your blog post - very intresting:

Unfortunately, Carrier subtly changes the criteria to better fit Jesus, and reorders them. Worse still, Carrier does not inform his readers that he has done this. This is amounts to academic dishonesty, since he is clearly misrepresenting his sources. Of course, Carrier is free to invent his own criteria and to ‘improve’ on Raglan’s. He then has to convince us why this is justified. Instead, he leads us to believe that he is using Raglan’s criteria, stating clearly: ‘But I shall work from the traditional twenty-two.’

Oh, dear - so Carrier is being taken to task once again.

1) we had the thread on the AoI.
2) we had the thread on Carrier's use of a questionable version of euhemerism to support his controversial mythicist theory.
3) we now have his tweaking of the Rank-Raglan hero classification.

3. The case against tweaking

But, one may wonder: is tweaking the criteria really so bad? Can’t we use any criteria we like, as long as we use them consistently? No, we absolutely cannot! Because there are almost infinitely many ways to subtly change criteria around and still make them fit most of the other heroes in the class, such tweaking massively reduces the discriminatory power of the reference class.

[neilgodfrey]

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.