Re: My review of Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Je
Posted: Tue May 03, 2016 7:21 am
Great rejoinders lately, Ben,
But this one was a little TOO obvious!
But this one was a little TOO obvious!
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Er... yes, that's what I meant... (walks away quickly, hoping no-one notices I thought the Ethiopic text was written in funny looking Greek!) This is why I emphasize I'm just an amateur, and no-one should assume I know what I'm talking about! (though I think I am usually more right than wrong) Thanks for the correction, Ben.Ben C. Smith wrote:Written in Greek? Or do you mean originally written in Greek (before being translated into Ethiopic)?GakuseiDon wrote:The Ethiopic text (written in Greek)....
https://archive.org/stream/cu3192401459 ... 1/mode/2up.
To which I responded:Neil: The way I take it the Jesus we know of today is a cultural composite that by and large fits the R-R classification of a hero. I think few persons in the R-R list would have all their background information conforming to the different classification facets. They figures that are included by Raglan in his book are very diverse. The question as I see it is: “How likely is it that a figure who by and large fits the RR class is explained by (a) h or (b) ~h?” I don’t know if this is adding anything to our discussion — perhaps I’m repeating myself.
As for your last question, I am not sure what you mean by “this hypothesis with all its properties”. There are properties that belong to the RR class of person but they are not the same properties as found in Carrier’s mythicist hypothesis. The properties of the latter serve to explain the properties of the former.
Added later:
Classification does not rely upon all things being similar among respective objects but only selected similarities. A kangaroo and a koala have very few obvious features in common but both are classified as marsupials — a useful classification for addressing scientific questions. Ditto for classifying the platypus with the echinda as monotremes, despite their apparent differences. Classification is about identifying certain points of commonality for specific purposes, to help us address and think about certain questions. Members of the R-R class can be as diverse as koalas are from kangaroos yet be classified together to enable useful questions to be explored.
I absolutely agree.the way I take it the Jesus we know of today is a cultural composite that by and large fits the R-R classification of a hero. I think few persons in the R-R list would have all their background information conforming to the different classification facets. They figures that are included by Raglan in his book are very diverse.
I think we are repeating ourselves a bit here but it is the central issue so perhaps it is okay. . So first off I 100% agree with that statement, I do think it is the central issue.The question as I see it is: “How likely is it that a figure who by and large fits the RR class is explained by (a) h or (b) ~h?” I don’t know if this is adding anything to our discussion — perhaps I’m repeating myself.
So what?
Since you ask, Markan Jesus scores lower than Zeus, Hercules, Oedipus, Moses, Theseus, Dionysus, Romulus and Perseus.
I don't think you are following cults all that well. Which is probably a good idea for you, because if you did you might find that as well as prophecies being not unusual, most cults who say they have or had a charismatic founder usually do or did, as is generally the case in world history too. It's what sheeple whoops I mean people in new cults generally do. They follow spechul people. Google sociology and psychology of cults. Analyse that and consider putting it into your prior bayseian probabilities maybe.