Carrier on Haile Selassie and Jesus in OHJ

[maryhelena]

Hi MaryHelena, Bernard Muller and others,

If we take the messianic cult theme to be the important parallel, then the Haile Selassie parallel is a good one. We do find historical parallels, and in fact we may find too many. The passion story seems to be made up of bits of Antigonus, Carabbas, Judas the Galilean, the Egyptian, Jesus, son of Ananus and a few others, including characters from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Antigonus = historical figure. Hasmonean coins.
Carabbas = fictional character in the gospel story.
Judas the Galilean = no evidence to support historicity.
the Egyptian = no evidence to support historicity.
Jesus, son of Ananus = no evidence to support historicity.

There is only one context in the first century bce with which this
portrayal of violent death at the hands of gentiles for a ruler of Israel
corresponds, and that is the Roman invasion which ended the Hasmonean
dynasty in 37 bce. That Roman invasion was an army sent
by Mark Antony to install Herod as king, and it brought a violent and
horrific end to the regime of the last Hasmonean king and high priest,
Antigonus Mattathias. There was a siege and a massacre in Jerusalem
and the temple was looted by Roman soldiers. Antigonus Mattathias
was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country.
And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is
the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus
Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of
being executed by Mark Antony.

ALLUSIONS TO THE END OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY
IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)
Gregory L. Doudna

http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads ... 59-278.pdf

Carrier wrote regarding a political fiction approach to the gospels that "it suits the Gospels well". That Carrier has drawn attention to the Haile Selassie scenario does indicate that he is fully aware that the gospel story, however much mythological elements are in it, that these mythological elements do not rule out a historical component to that story. Sure, Carrier does not see fit to give this approach to the gospel story any probability figure - but that does not negate the possibility. It only reflects Carrier's bias towards the Carrier-Doherty theory.

If we instead take the rapid development of a widespread cult with an offbeat and bizarre ideology as the important parallel, ...

That approach might work in a Pauline context. It has no merit as an approach to the gospel story. The claim made by the gospel story is an execution/crucifixion by Rome of a Jewish messiah figure. Now, we can go the Carrier-Doherty route and say that story is meaningless - its just a historicizing of the Pauline celestial christ figure and has no historical relevance. Or, one can put imaginative scenarios aside and pick up a history book. The debate between the historicists and the ahistoricists, over the gospel figure of Jesus, requires historical not imaginative 'spiritual' arguments.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

The Rastifarians were copying the Savior model of Christianity. They just took a contemporary man for their physical model. They used Haile Sellasi in the way that Eugene Delacroix used a contemporary female model for his painting "Liberty Leading the People," or Orson Welles used William Randolf Heart as the model for "Citizen Kane."
When Lucas made "Star Wars", he was following the Japanese Samurai movie, "the Hidden Forest" which was based on American Westerns. (Note that Gene Roddenberry pitched "Star Trek" as "Wagon Train in space." He also relocated the American Western to make his successful sci-fi series.

We cannot assume that ancient cults relied on contemporary historical figures for the central characters in their myths. Rather, we may just as well assume that they relied on the characteristics of mythical characters who were already known, much as George Lucas did. We may also suppose that they relied on a mixture of both. In this sense, they could issue the disclaimer, "All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental." Since this disclaimer was only invented in 1934 to avoid lawsuits, we don't find it at the beginning of the New Testament.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

to PhilosopherJay

I tend to think the Luke Skywalker model fits Jesus better than the Haille Selasie model.

This is what Carrier wrote in his passage about Haile Selassie and Rastafarian faith.
"Yet it's told anyway. And not just told, but believed completely by every adherent of the faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
But not merely the cautionary, but the factual parallels are numerous, too. Edmund Standing summarizes this point elegantly:
Looking at the status of Haile Selassie in the Rastafari religion we find the following: (1) The coming to earth of a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; (2) a birth accompanied by miracles; (3) a child with immense divinely given wisdom who possessed miraculous powers; (4) a messiah whose actions were prefigured in Old Testament writings; (5) a man who could perform miracles and in whose presence miracles occurred; (6) a man who was worshiped and held to be divine by thousands who had not even met him; (7) a man who was the incarnation of God and who continues to live on despite evidence of his death; (8) a man who is prayed to and communicated with by his followers; (9) a savior who will one day return to gather up a chosen people who will live under his rule in a kingdom of God. Despite the facts related to the actual historical figure of Selassie, as we see, Rastafarians have built an extensive religious mythology around him, and even did so within his lifetime."

Does that look like your Luke Skywalker? It looks more like Haile Selassie was made as a super Jesus by Rastafarians, for religious motives.

Cordially. Bernard

[maryhelena]

We cannot assume that ancient cults relied on contemporary historical figures for the central characters in their myths.

It works the other way as well - we can't write the possibility off....

Earl Doherty

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

[Stephan Huller]

And Celsus makes the same argument in antiquity. He asks somewhere (after citing a number of examples of pagan heroes who were venerated as gods) 'why can't (you Christians) just take a liking to these people if you just want to worship someone as a god?' An old question, but the specific Jewish prohibition to such veneration is never answered by Celsus (or anyone at this board for that matter).

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi maryhelena,

Good quote from Earl Doherty. I tend to agree with it.

The problem is the lack of independent trustworthy historical sources in ancient times. Today we have birth records, death records, tax records,school records, military records, travel records, land ownership records, and census records. None of these were kept over generations in ancient times. We also have millions of history books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television,picture, movie and digitalized records. All inventions of modern technology. virtually 99.99% of all people living in the last century have some kind of trustworthy factual records to prove they were historical.
For ancient peoples, the situation is exactly reversed. All we have are mentions in a few hundred history books, a few hundred coins, a few hundred letters,a few hundred statues, and a few hundred literary works. We can say that 99.99% of the people who existed in the First Century and before have no record of historical existence.

A few days ago, I watched a 1930 movie called "The Miracle Woman." It was about a Christian miracle worker named Florence Fallon. It took me only two minutes on the internet to determine that the character was a fictitious character based on the historical person Aimee Semple McPherson. The character Fallon does faith healing in Los Angeles as McPherson did. They both built a temple/church in Los Angeles as they got a huge following of believers. They both broadcast sermons over the radio. On the other hand, the movie plot deals mainly with Fallon's relationship with her crooked manager and a blind man whom she falls in love with. I did not find any relationship between McPherson and a blind lover. The movie showed her as having only one rather chaste love affair, whereas, contemporary (and possibly unreliable) reports suggest that she had a number of sexual affairs with a number of men. After about an hour of research, it was pretty easy to tell the 10% of the things that happened to Fallon that was based on things that happened to McPherson and the 90% of things that happened to Fallon in the movie that did not happen to McPherson.

At the same time, the movie's debunking tone and some other elements seem also to be based on the fictitious novel "Elmer Gantry" (1927) by Sinclair Lewis. Florence Fallon's name is pretty close to the female evangelist in the book, Sharon Falconer. The movie and the book have quite similar endings.

I also watched the movie "Hercules," (Ratner, 2014) this week, which claimed, tongue in cheek, to tell the true story of the man behind the myth. Rather it just seemed to add more myth to the myth. Still, it was fun with Hercules resembling a modern comic book super-hero more than anything else. I found some irony in the fact that modern comic book superheroes were based on ancient mythology (see Captain Marvel, for example) and now that ancient Mythology is being portrayed as modern super-hero comic book stories.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

We cannot assume that ancient cults relied on contemporary historical figures for the central characters in their myths.

It works the other way as well - we can't write the possibility off....

Earl Doherty

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

[maryhelena]

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Yes, of course, James Bond being a prime example:

James Bond

As the central figure for his works, Ian Fleming created the fictional character of James Bond, an intelligence officer in the Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6. Bond was also known by his code number, 007, and was a Royal Naval Reserve Commander.

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[1] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[2] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.[1]

My 'take' on the Jesus figure of the gospel story is that this literary figure is a composite, a compound, of historical figures that were of interest and importance to the gospel writers. What such an approach does is open up areas for further investigation. Why were these figures important? Answers could well provide motivation or intent of the gospel writers. i.e that their story is not just for theological/philosophical purposes but also carries a social/political component. And it's that, a social/political component, that can lead to the source from which the gospel story arose. A search for early christian origins needs to deal with the social/political component that is reflected in the gospel story. The theology, the philosophy, is the window-dressing. It's the 'boots on the ground' that run into the byways and the alleyways of early christian origins that interests me....

The Carrier-Doherty theory fails in this regard. It's focus on Pauline theology/philosophy inhibits the search for early christian origins. A search that is a necessity if the Jesus historicists are to be countered. Interpretations of the Pauline epistles cannot penetrate the Jesus historicists assumptions. Historical claims have to be established by historical argument - or negated by historical argument.

And Jay, what interests people the most? Is it the theology of the NT or the story about a man? Sure, the man in the story is a literary creation but for millions of people it is a man, not a literary figure, that they find interest in. At the end of the day, how many books will Carrier sell compared to Reza Aslan or Joe Atwill or Daniel Underbrink, for example. People relate to people. They relate to stories about people. People need heroes. Whether the everyday hero or the epic hero. Whether it's Mandela or the latest pop star, people find inspiration from the lives of other people. What I'm trying to say here is simple - people need people. Which means, one can't take away the gospel figure of Jesus and leave people in a vacuum. One can't replace Jesus with an idea - a Pauline idea. One needs to replace Jesus, like James Bond, with the historical figures that were of interest to the gospel writers in the creation of their literary Jesus figure.

Hi maryhelena,

Good quote from Earl Doherty. I tend to agree with it.

The problem is the lack of independent trustworthy historical sources in ancient times. Today we have birth records, death records, tax records,school records, military records, travel records, land ownership records, and census records. None of these were kept over generations in ancient times. We also have millions of history books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television,picture, movie and digitalized records. All inventions of modern technology. virtually 99.99% of all people living in the last century have some kind of trustworthy factual records to prove they were historical.
For ancient peoples, the situation is exactly reversed. All we have are mentions in a few hundred history books, a few hundred coins, a few hundred letters,a few hundred statues, and a few hundred literary works. We can say that 99.99% of the people who existed in the First Century and before have no record of historical existence.

A few days ago, I watched a 1930 movie called "The Miracle Woman." It was about a Christian miracle worker named Florence Fallon. It took me only two minutes on the internet to determine that the character was a fictitious character based on the historical person Aimee Semple McPherson. The character Fallon does faith healing in Los Angeles as McPherson did. They both built a temple/church in Los Angeles as they got a huge following of believers. They both broadcast sermons over the radio. On the other hand, the movie plot deals mainly with Fallon's relationship with her crooked manager and a blind man whom she falls in love with. I did not find any relationship between McPherson and a blind lover. The movie showed her as having only one rather chaste love affair, whereas, contemporary (and possibly unreliable) reports suggest that she had a number of sexual affairs with a number of men. After about an hour of research, it was pretty easy to tell the 10% of the things that happened to Fallon that was based on things that happened to McPherson and the 90% of things that happened to Fallon in the movie that did not happen to McPherson.

At the same time, the movie's debunking tone and some other elements seem also to be based on the fictitious novel "Elmer Gantry" (1927) by Sinclair Lewis. Florence Fallon's name is pretty close to the female evangelist in the book, Sharon Falconer. The movie and the book have quite similar endings.

I also watched the movie "Hercules," (Ratner, 2014) this week, which claimed, tongue in cheek, to tell the true story of the man behind the myth. Rather it just seemed to add more myth to the myth. Still, it was fun with Hercules resembling a modern comic book super-hero more than anything else. I found some irony in the fact that modern comic book superheroes were based on ancient mythology (see Captain Marvel, for example) and now that ancient Mythology is being portrayed as modern super-hero comic book stories.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

We cannot assume that ancient cults relied on contemporary historical figures for the central characters in their myths.

It works the other way as well - we can't write the possibility off....

Earl Doherty

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary