Carrier on Haile Selassie and Jesus in OHJ

[Bernard Muller]

From my blog post #106 (http://historical-Jesus.info/106.html):

I think Carrier's piece on the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie and the Rastafari religion (pages 18-20 of OHJ) is priceless and goes against Carrier's mythicist theory in a big way, despite his objections. Next I'll reproduce Carrier's writing with my embedded comments:

It's quite common for historical persons to become surrounded by a vast quantity of myth and legend, and very rapidly, too, especially when they become the object of religious veneration.

My comment: I could not have said it any better: as I see it here, Carrier throws out by the window his so-called evidence from the Rank-Raglan scale supposedly pointing to a completely mythical Jesus.

Thus, the fact that this has happened never in itself argues that the person in question didn't exist.

My comment: Absolutely!

One relatively recent example is the elevation of the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie to the status of a god . . . by people he never asked this favor from and even repeatedly begged to stop. His deification (and continued worship to this day) is the foundation of the modern Rastafarian faith, which claims hundreds of thousands of adherents worldwide. It's telling that we know he professed to his death his own Christian faith and his continual despair at the fact that he had been elevated into a revered divinity so quickly—despite his protests (and one would think if your own god protested your worshiping him, you'd listen—and yet here we are). Myths and legends about him quickly grew—even within his own lifetime, and all the more rapidly in the two decades after his death in 1975. And yet none had any basis in fact. At all. Yet still they remain the central affirmations of a living faith.
The parallel with Jesus ought to be cautionary: if this could happen to Selassie, it could even more easily have happened to Jesus, there being no universal education or literacy, or even media per se in the ancient world. fn 1

To see the rest of my post (and how Carrier goes into damage control mode!), click here: http://historical-Jesus.info/106.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

It's a good general argument you make Bernard. I do think there are difficulties. The first is that Ethiopians and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church don't think that Selassie was god. On the surface that's 'similar' to the situation in early Christianity insofar as Christianity became a Gentile religion. But the 'historical' model for early Christianity assumes Jewish converts who thought Jesus was a God (unless you foist all of that on Paul). The difficulty with foisting all of that on Paul is that the earliest Jewish Christian gospel (that associated with the Ebionites) still has elements of a supernatural Jesus. Moreover Celsus's Jew assumes that Jews (perhaps later 'Jewish Christians') were saying that Jesus was God but he (the Jew) consistently argues against this from 'their gospel' where it is clear he was human.

The point is with Rastafarianism you have a clear situation where 'outsiders' to the original organized religion (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) make a historical man god. With early Christianity the assumption on some level must be that members of the original organized religion (Paul and others) developed the transformation of history into myth within a religion (Judaism) that forbade such practices. It's a superficially similar example Carrier brings up (and you develop) but there are fundamental differences. Judaism is still a roadblock to developing a man into a God, more so than Ethiopian Christianity (where no explicit prohibitions are found or at least it is easier to do since Jesus is man and god).

Not a perfect example.

[maryhelena]

From my blog post #106 (http://historical-Jesus.info/106.html):

I think Carrier's piece on the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie and the Rastafari religion (pages 18-20 of OHJ) is priceless and goes against Carrier's mythicist theory in a big way, despite his objections. Next I'll reproduce Carrier's writing with my embedded comments:

It's quite common for historical persons to become surrounded by a vast quantity of myth and legend, and very rapidly, too, especially when they become the object of religious veneration.

My comment: I could not have said it any better: as I see it here, Carrier throws out by the window his so-called evidence from the Rank-Raglan scale supposedly pointing to a completely mythical Jesus.

Thus, the fact that this has happened never in itself argues that the person in question didn't exist.
My comment: Absolutely!

One relatively recent example is the elevation of the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie to the status of a god . . . by people he never asked this favor from and even repeatedly begged to stop. His deification (and continued worship to this day) is the foundation of the modern Rastafarian faith, which claims hundreds of thousands of adherents worldwide. It's telling that we know he professed to his death his own Christian faith and his continual despair at the fact that he had been elevated into a revered divinity so quickly—despite his protests (and one would think if your own god protested your worshiping him, you'd listen—and yet here we are). Myths and legends about him quickly grew—even within his own lifetime, and all the more rapidly in the two decades after his death in 1975. And yet none had any basis in fact. At all. Yet still they remain the central affirmations of a living faith.
The parallel with Jesus ought to be cautionary: if this could happen to Selassie, it could even more easily have happened to Jesus, there being no universal education or literacy, or even media per se in the ancient world. fn 1

To see the rest of my post (and how Carrier goes into damage control mode!), click here: http://historical-Jesus.info/106.html

Cordially, Bernard

Nice, Bernard.....

Carrier is so close and yet seems unable to face what is before his eyes....

If Jesus Christ' began as a celestial deity' is false, it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some scholars have indeed argued - the best examples being R.G. Price and Gary Courtney). But as will become clear in following chapters....such a premise has a much lower prior probability (and this is already at a huge disadvantage over Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence) and a very low consequent probability (though it suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence of the Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard to explain. Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated, I'm sure it very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume it's prior probability is too small even to show up in our maths. This decision can be reversed only by a sound and valid demonstration that we must assign it a higher prior or consequent, but I leave to anyone who thinks it's possible. Page 53/54

my formatting

Carrier's problem is the dating of the Pauline epistles to be later than the present gospel manuscripts. But, if there was a flesh and blood crucifixion - of a nobody or a somebody - then this flesh and blood crucifixion happened prior to any Pauline epistle being written. Even if, for the sake of argument, the present gospel manuscripts were written post the Pauline epistles - that would not have any bearing on the fact of a flesh and blood crucifixion being relevant for the gospel story.

Bottom line is that a flesh and blood crucifixion was relevant to the gospel writers. The question is what crucifixion, what Roman execution, that was - not whether or not a flesh and blood crucifixion was important to the writers of the gospel story. It was - and it has to be dealt with if the ahistoricist/mythicist position on the gospel figure of Jesus is to move forward.

[Stephan Huller]

You people want to assume that there were no differences between heathens (who could do what they wanted in terms of worship) and Jews who were (at the time of early Christianity) put to death for making a man god. Garbage in, garbage out.

[spin]

Carrier poses an epistemological problem. Jesus could be like a mythologized Haile Selassie, but then again he could be like any one of the various fictitious persons that inhabit christian literature. "So which was it for Jesus?" This obviously entails the question "and how do you know?"

You left this out.

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

It's a good general argument you make Bernard.

It is not my argument, but Carrier's (everything in navy blue is from Carrier, not me).

The first is that Ethiopians and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church don't think that Selassie was god.

This is similar to the Jews and their leadership thinking Jesus was no god.

But the 'historical' model for early Christianity assumes Jewish converts who thought Jesus was a God (unless you foist all of that on Paul).

My historical model does not have Jesus' followers and the earliest Jewish converts thinking Jesus was a god. But the latter, early on, thought Jesus was saved in heaven (as Moses & Abraham, according to Philo of Alexandria). And yes, I foist all of that (divinization) on Paul (and Apollos of Alexandria).

The difficulty with foisting all of that on Paul is that the earliest Jewish Christian gospel (that associated with the Ebionites) still has elements of a supernatural Jesus.

From where do you get that? What supernatural elements?

Moreover Celsus's Jew assumes that Jews (perhaps later 'Jewish Christians')

Celsus came rather too late (2nd half of 2nd century) to know about the earliest Jewish Christians beliefs.

With early Christianity the assumption on some level must be that members of the original organized religion (Paul and others)

I do not think early Christianity was organized, rather the complete opposite.

Judaism is still a roadblock to developing a man into a God

Yes, but that roadblock got progressively removed, starting by Paul, at the same time when Gentiles became, by number, the main converts.

the transformation of history into myth within a religion (Judaism) that forbade such practices

I do not think so. Judaism has always been in antiquity developping a lot of myths (as through peshering and midrash). There are a large quantity of texts attesting to that.

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

This is similar to the Jews and their leadership thinking Jesus was no god.

But this shows profound lack of sensitivity to the differences in culture here. I am going back to Addis Ababa later this year. Jews were explicitly forbidden to place any created thing (even a man) before God. Christians already had the precedent of accepting one man as a god. It's apples and oranges.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Carrier poses an epistemological problem. Jesus could be like a mythologized Haile Selassie, but then again he could be like any one of the various fictitious persons that inhabit christian literature. "So which was it for Jesus?" This obviously entails the question "and how do you know?"

You left this out.

No, I did not leave anything out. On my own blog & post #106, ((http://historical-Jesus.info/106.html) I reproduce integrally & completely the whole of Carrier's passage on Haile Selassie, including the foot notes, including Carrier's last words on this passage: "So which was it for Jesus?"

Cordially, Bernard

[Stephan Huller]

As always this shows us about the differences between Bernard and other scholars. Carrier is asking a question. Bernard is incapable of asking questions or at least admitting he doesn't know the answer. His mind must even systematize his dreams when he wakes up. Never allows for the possibility that we might not know the answer. There always has to be an answer ... and a new page at his website to prove it.

[Bernard Muller]

to Stephan,

As always this shows us about the differences between Bernard and other scholars. Carrier is asking a question. Bernard is incapable of asking questions or at least admitting he doesn't know the answer. His mind must even systematize his dreams when he wakes up. Never allows for the possibility that we might not know the answer. There always has to be an answer ... and a new page at his website to prove it.

Carrier is asking a question, and after more that 500 pages later, Carrier answered his question (in his overall conclusion).
I asked questions too and provide answers. My website and blog is full of answers (after a lot of time consuming research based on evidence): is it a crime? But I do not have answers on everything.
What else do I have to prove my points than my own writings with stating the evidence I used?
Why is it so bad for me to display my thinking process and conclusions for everyone to see?

Cordially, Bernard