Carrier on Haile Selassie and Jesus in OHJ

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Hi Bernard, nice discussion and good points from you. Nevertheless, a small disappointment. How could you both overlooked that Mark discussed the problem of blind and fanatical followers - from his point of view - extensively (look for the word ὄχλος [ochlos] in GMark) and Paul too (1 Corinthians)? These guys have already reflected on a similar question and it seems to me, you can not rely on these texts as "naive" sources for your discussion.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

I think Carrier's point is that the historical man Haile Selassie had almost nothing to do with the mythological personage some of his followers created.
We might look at this idea from another prospective. The Star Wars Franchise made $27 Billion from 1977-2013 http://www.statisticbrain.com/star-wars ... e-revenue/. How much of this money did Luke Skywalker receive?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[bcedaifu]

Mark discussed the problem of blind and fanatical followers - from his point of view - extensively (look for the word ὄχλος [ochlos] in GMark) and Paul too (1 Corinthians)?

I confess that as I read those gMark passages in which ὄχλος appears, e.g. 2:4, 2:13..., I do not find a pejorative description of the setting, rather, Mark's description accords Jesus a hero's reception.

Further, and in my opinion, far more significant, though quite a bit astray from the OP, I do not agree with you Kunigunde Kreuzerin, regarding the notion that ὄχλος is also found in Paul's epistles.

As was the situation with the discrepancy between the gospel author's portrayal of the last supper, and Paul's description in 1 Corinthians 11:25 (adding καινὴ "new", in English, to the word for covenant διαθήκη, so too, here we see another instance where Paul's description of Jesus' behaviour, (having ignored the concept of an adoring crowd, ὄχλος, of followers of the human rabbi), suggests a later text, a revision of Mark and Matthew. Why? Paul is instructing his followers to ignore Jewish law, Jewish tradition, Jewish rules, like circumcision, like Saturday worship, like breaking bread with non-believers, like worshiping a deity, other than yhwh. The crowd following the human rabbi, is a distraction from Paul's message of eternal life in paradise. Paul does not seek an improvement in the life of squalor surrounding his followers. He urges them to ignore the petty realities about themselves, and think instead about eternal salvation, with life in heaven.

This is a revision, of the gospel version, that focuses on Jesus, the human messiah, coming to rescue the population, riding a big white horse, a la Alexander of Macedonia. For Paul, writing after MMLJ, there is nothing to be gained by dreaming of killing the oppressors, the Roman troops, they are simply too numerous, too well armed, and too well trained. The wealthy supporters of Paul, genuinely have no interest in expelling the Romans. They depend on commerce and trade with the Roman state. Omission of ὄχλος and introduction of καινὴ διαθήκη represent clear evidence that Paul followed, rather than preceded, the gospels.

[Bernard Muller]

to PhilosopherJay

I think Carrier's point is that the historical man Haile Selassie had almost nothing to do with the mythological personage some of his followers created.

This is one of the points Carrier is making and he even said the same can apply also to Jesus: I agree on both counts.
Carrier wrote in his passage about Haile Selassie and Rastafarian beliefs:
"So perhaps everything told about Jesus is just as made up as everything now told about Selassie."
and
"it's perfectly possible that a real Jesus underlies all the extant myths about him"
The later statement is dependant, for Carrier, on his own allegations:
"Nevertheless, Standing's methodological proposals are sound: only if the differences I allege are actually there will the comparison fail. Otherwise, it's perfectly possible that a real Jesus underlies all the extant myths about him."

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

to PhilosopherJay

I think Carrier's point is that the historical man Haile Selassie had almost nothing to do with the mythological personage some of his followers created.

This is one of the points Carrier is making and he even said the same can apply also to Jesus: I agree on both counts.
Carrier wrote in his passage about Haile Selassie and Rastafarian beliefs:
"So perhaps everything told about Jesus is just as made up as everything now told about Selassie."
and
"it's perfectly possible that a real Jesus underlies all the extant myths about him"
The later statement is dependant, for Carrier, on his own allegations:
"Nevertheless, Standing's methodological proposals are sound: only if the differences I allege are actually there will the comparison fail. Otherwise, it's perfectly possible that a real Jesus underlies all the extant myths about him."

Cordially, Bernard

Thus, arguing that the gospel Jesus is a mythological creation, a literary creation, cannot negate the argument that behind it all, underneath it all, lies a historical figure, or figures. The fundamental question is what historical event is the gospel crucifixion story reflecting; what historical event motivated the gospel mythological story to be created. All the Pauline interpretations in the world cannot remove the possibility that the gospel crucifixion story is reflecting an historical event. To deny that possibility, when Hasmonean history clearly indicates a Roman execution of the last Jewish King, is not a rational position for the ahistorist/mythicist position to take.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Mark discussed the problem of blind and fanatical followers - from his point of view - extensively (look for the word ὄχλος [ochlos] in GMark) and Paul too (1 Corinthians)?

Further, and in my opinion, far more significant, though quite a bit astray from the OP, I do not agree with you Kunigunde Kreuzerin, regarding the notion that ὄχλος is also found in Paul's epistles.

Hi bcedaifu, the "too" referred to the discussion of the problem, not to the use of the word ὄχλος. This was not clear?

Mark discussed the problem of blind and fanatical followers - from his point of view - extensively (look for the word ὄχλος [ochlos] in GMark) ...?

I confess that as I read those gMark passages in which ὄχλος appears, e.g. 2:4, 2:13..., I do not find a pejorative description of the setting, rather, Mark's description accords Jesus a hero's reception.

Maybe you should read the last passages in which the word ὄχλος is used and ask yourself if you should think a bit more critical about the role of the crowds.

It seems to me almost a consensus among scholars that Mark portrays Jesus at least not as a great hero in a naive way, but as a suffering servant, what is a stumbling stone especially for the disciples. You do not seem to share this opinion. What are your reasons?

[MrMacSon]

.
Carrier's problem is the dating of the Pauline epistles to be later than the present gospel manuscripts .... 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.

I think we've discussed this - why can't the Pauline texts have originated separate to the synoptic gospels? and later be redacted & conflated?

[PhilosopherJay]

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.

If we instead take the rapid development of a widespread cult with an offbeat and bizarre ideology as the important parallel, I think a parallel to "Star Wars" is better. Hundreds of millions of people have seen "Star Wars" and know about "the Force," while only a couple of million people know anything about the Rastifarians and the number of members are under 100,000.

Luke Skywalker was called Kane StarKiller in the first draft of the script for "Star Wars." He was based on the character of General Rokurota Makabe played by Toshiro Mifuni in the Akira Kuroshowa film "Hidden Fortress" (1958). Kuroshowa was a big fan of American Westerns, especially John Ford Westerns, so one could say that the character was based on several characters played by John Wayne in John Ford Movies. Wayne himself says he patterned his persona on the Western silent film actor Tom Mix. Here is a biography of Tom Mix' early life taken from Wikipedia:

He grew up in nearby Dubois, Pennsylvania, where his father, a stable master for a wealthy lumber merchant, taught him to ride and love horses.[3] He spent time working on a local farm owned by John Dubois, a lumber businessman. He had dreams of being in the circus and was rumored to have been caught by his parents practicing knife-throwing tricks against a wall, using his sister as an assistant.

In April 1898, during the Spanish-American War, he enlisted in the Army under the name Thomas E. (Edwin) Mix. His unit never went overseas, and Mix later failed to return for duty after an extended furlough when he married Grace I. Allin on July 18, 1902. Mix was listed as AWOL on November 4, 1902, but was never court-martialed nor apparently even discharged. His marriage to Allin was annulled after one year. In 1905, Mix married Kitty Jewel Perinne, but this marriage also ended within a year. He next married Olive Stokes on January 10, 1909, in Medora, North Dakota.

In 1905, Mix rode in Theodore Roosevelt's inaugural parade led by Seth Bullock with a group of 50 horsemen, which included several former Rough Riders. Years later, Hollywood publicists would muddle this event to imply that Mix had been a Rough Rider himself.

After working a variety of odd jobs in the Oklahoma Territory, Mix found employment at the Miller Brothers 101 Ranch, one of the largest ranching businesses in the United States, covering 101,000 acres (409 km²), hence its name. The ranch had its own touring Wild West show in which Mix appeared. He stood out as a skilled horseman and expert shot, winning national riding and roping contests at Prescott, Arizona in 1909, and Canon City, Colorado in 1910.

Tom Mix began his film career as a supporting cast member with the Selig Polyscope Company. His first appearance was in a short film titled The Cowboy Millionaire, released on October 21, 1909.[2] In 1910 he appeared as himself in a short documentary film titled Ranch Life in the Great Southwest in which he displayed his skills as a cattle wrangler. Shot at the Selig studio in the Edendale district of Los Angeles (now known as Echo Park), the film was a success and Mix became an early motion picture star.

We might say that the Jesus in the gospels bares the same relationship to an historical Jesus as Luke Skywalker does to Tom Mix. This would be misleading in a way because of the number of steps between getting from Mix to Skywalker. It would probably be better to say that Luke Skywalker is a fictional/mythological character based on various and sundry fictional and historical characters.

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

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

to PhilosopherJay

I think Carrier's point is that the historical man Haile Selassie had almost nothing to do with the mythological personage some of his followers created.

This is one of the points Carrier is making and he even said the same can apply also to Jesus: I agree on both counts.
Carrier wrote in his passage about Haile Selassie and Rastafarian beliefs:
"So perhaps everything told about Jesus is just as made up as everything now told about Selassie."
and
"it's perfectly possible that a real Jesus underlies all the extant myths about him"
The later statement is dependant, for Carrier, on his own allegations:
"Nevertheless, Standing's methodological proposals are sound: only if the differences I allege are actually there will the comparison fail. Otherwise, it's perfectly possible that a real Jesus underlies all the extant myths about him."

Cordially, Bernard

Thus, arguing that the gospel Jesus is a mythological creation, a literary creation, cannot negate the argument that behind it all, underneath it all, lies a historical figure, or figures. The fundamental question is what historical event is the gospel crucifixion story reflecting; what historical event motivated the gospel mythological story to be created. All the Pauline interpretations in the world cannot remove the possibility that the gospel crucifixion story is reflecting an historical event. To deny that possibility, when Hasmonean history clearly indicates a Roman execution of the last Jewish King, is not a rational position for the ahistorist/mythicist position to take.

[spin]

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

I was not talking about simply reproducing what Carrier said. Yes, you have his whole passage there. You left it (the epistemological problem) out because you do not deal with it at all. You just completely misrepresented what Carrier was doing in using Haile Selassie. You derailed yourself because you didn't follow his discourse, being too busy with the literal similarity between Selassie and your image of what happened in the Jesus tradition.

[Bernard Muller]

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