Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-18-2005, 01:50 PM

Richard, you have just posted something many will find interesting, perhaps even historic

. I hope my few 'challenges' don't seem like nitpicking, but since I'm not a mythicist I'd be curious as to your thoughts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

(1) Even such details in Mark can be given plausible mytho-symbolic meaning (IMO) and they are so few that the weight of inference is in favor of some such meaning even if we can't find it (e.g. since 90% of the apparent "facts" in Mark have such evident mytho-symbolic meaning, the inference is that the odds are 90% that any remaining facts also have such a meaning, even if we can't figure out what it is).

I'm still reading up on this, but I wonder if this is something that can easily be done with most or many historical works, so the end result is that IF one tries to do it (ie find patterns--connections, etc..) one usually can! IF so, then it really is the QUALITY and not QUANTITY of the connections/meanings that must be judged.

Quote:

(2) Even such details in Paul are extremely generic (e.g. neither his father nor mother are named), which accords slightly more with mythicism than historicism (especially since it was so much the standard to identify a man by his patronymic, and yet Paul never calls Jesus "Jesus of Joseph," for example), and all such details are ritualistically required (e.g. the mythic dogma of this Jesus requires that he be born of a woman to the Davidic line, no matter how that was rationalized metaphorically, and we have precedent for such rationalizations not only outside Christianity, as in Philo, but even in Hebrews itself), and therefore cannot be said to be improbable on H, even if they are not 100% expected on H.

To me the weight we give to silence should be related to whether such silence would be expected given the context and the person speaking. Paul doesn't refer to others by their patryonymic either (Apollos, Cephas, John, etc..) so that is an example of evidence that I would consider to be of little value.

Quote:

3) The external references are not credible challenges to H--e.g.

Even if this is so, should we EXPECT early external references if Jesus were a crucified man about whom not a whole lot was known? And, if the Josephus references are interpolations, might we just as reasonably ask why Josephus doesn't address the existence of Christians at all? Even when some things were probably known we have writers not addressing them, ie Philo's silence on John the Baptist.

How these are weighted seem to me to make all the difference in deciding probable history. Just some thoughts.

ted

Rick Sumner · 07-18-2005, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

I have recently completed notes that have led me to the conclusion that I can explain every detail of every verse of Mark's crucifixion and empty tomb narratives (including all the names of everyone who is mentioned by name in either) without appealing to a single historical fact--that in fact, most of those details are so obviously symbolic and metaphorical that they are almost certainly not historical nor intended to be.

Even allowing this (which I'm not sure that I would), this doesn't point to solidly to any conclusion. By way of analogy, virtually every detail in Platoon serves some narrative or symbolic purpose, yet the story is nonetheless rooted in truth on some level--Oliver Stone's experiences in Vietnam. To be sure, the mass media of today provides weak analogy at best, but one can find ancient analogy again. I point, as I have in the past, to Herodotus' account of Solon and Croesus in the first book of his Histories. A brilliant piece, with a clear message to readers both antiquitous and modern. To speak nothing of outright fiction. Solon and Croesus lived decades apart and, if they met at all, it was a remarkable coincidence.

Herodotus made the whole story up. Solon and Croesus were nonetheless real people.

I am not attempting to address your later question here (though I am not convinced that it is not without answer), regarding what reason there is to believe the crucifixion happened at all, but rather questioning whether you have provided adequate grounds to dismiss the prima facie case in its favor provided by the juxtaposition of Mark with Paul (or, for that matter, provided by Paul at all--the simple presumption that Paul was saying what it sounds like Paul is saying on first blush).

Quote:

Now, for all that, perhaps one can still cling to a historical Jesus who has become totally eclipsed by myth, but Doherty is right to declare that highly improbable.

I would question that as well. Hezekiah, for example, was a real person about whom Biblical accounts provide complete nonsense. Highly improbable? By what standard? The list of ancient characters who were enveloped in myth and legend such that we cannot recover accurate biography is not a short one. For a highly improbable event, it sure seems to happen an awful lot.

Quote:

From B we learn that the frequency with which content like E is produced by circumstances like H is high (e.g. most salvific godmen who score high on Otto Rank's "mythic hero" scale and are written about in highly symbolic ways were not real people). Without trying to estimate a range of exact frequencies, I think it is fair to say "most" and for now just use a stand-in value below, which I do not claim is my final assignment here.

I don't think it is fair to say "most" at all. Augustus, Alexander, Juliius Caesar, Joan of Arc--the list goes on. If we discount such individuals, who score highly but are known not to be myth, then all you've created is a tautology--Mythic characters are mythic characters. If we don't discount them, then your entire premise crumbles, for virtually all narratives about ancient heroes would score highly on Rank's scale, regardless of the historicity of the tale. A true "hero" is as likely to have such a narrative constructed about him as an utter myth--perhaps even moreso, since the added burden of creating and championing a character is relieved from the storyteller.

More later.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman · 07-19-2005, 12:22 AM

Carrier,
Thank you for posting here again. You command plenty of respect here and would urge you not to walk away just because you feel that two of us dont "listen" [I am sure this does not apply to spin - whose mastery of the subject and the language of Greek and Hebrew is phenomenal].
I am relatively less knowledgeable than you in this matter. But my approach will be to consistently seek explanations where I do not understand, and to disagree where I am not persuaded.
It may very well be the case that we do not get what you are arguing. But when I do see clear evidence of that, I will own up.
For example, youngalexander faults me on the way I handled the phrase: "without reference to evidence for the specific case at hand, but is derived from the frequency of causes for comparable events�?. I do admit that, having “competing factions and several different beliefs about Jesus�? as a response to the above falls off the mark, but that is not all I wrote.
I clearly referenced Vodoo religion as an example of a religion that emerged from a syncretism of different religions.

Quote:

I have come to realize that mythicism is significantly more probably true than historicity. This I consider as radical a departure from my previous agnosticism as my agnosticism was from my previous historicism.

This is great. With you as an ally, I am sure a lot of novel ways of evaluating the available evidence will emerge.
In light of your shift in position, and in my citation of Origen's Homily, do you still maintain that Origen did not believe Nazareth was mythical?

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2005, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

It has been my point, consistently every time, that what is wrong here is to argue "Mark stated what was false about Nazareth". ... Maybe he did say false things, maybe he didn't. So far, in this thread I have still seen no good evidence he did.

Mark's sole mention of Nazareth is 1:9. If that is an interpolation (cf Matt 3:13), than Mark said nothing about Nazareth.
If that is true, what is the earliest extant mention of Nazareth? It would be Matthew 2:23. Matthew simply made a mistake. Matthew didn't know what Nazarene meant, confused it with Nazarite (for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: Judges 13:5), and compounded the error by creating a ficticious town Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

The Daniel prophecy predicts a Christ arising in or "around" the very time of Pilate (that Daniel predicted something loosely like that was so widely known even Tacitus and Suetonius, as well as Josephus, allude to it, though only in connection with the War). This would provide the impetus to invent and launch a movement around that very fact.

That is a good point, but the movement would not have to arise at that time. It might explain why a mythical Jesus would be historized after the fact into that time period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

One of many pre-existing "cosmic Jesus" movements, perhaps one with Cephas / Peter as a member

The identification of Peter with Cephas, at least in the Pauline corpus, appears to be questionable.
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Barnikol.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

I have come to realize that mythicism is significantly more probably true than historicity. ... Those who are already convinced of mythicism will probably already see how the blanks could be filled in and a persuasive argument constructed from what mythicists like Doherty and Price have already argued.

Richard, that is terrific. Can't wait to hear more of your findings.

Jake Jones

TedM · 07-19-2005, 07:32 AM

Re: Daniel prophecy

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

That is a good point, but the movement would not have to arise at that time. It might explain why a mythical Jesus would be historized after the fact into that time period.

Or simply why historical figures of that time were followed as Messiahs. Or why Jesus may have thought himself to be the Messiah. Or why John the Baptist may have said the kingdom of god is 'near'. The 'when' works for both sides of the debate. A side note--I don't think Daniel does prophecy that time period for when. Muller has a very interesting analysis of what 70 'sevens' really means here: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html He ties it nicely into the time period of Antiochus Epiphanes.

ted

S.C.Carlson · 07-19-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Mark's sole mention of Nazareth is 1:9. If that is an interpolation (cf Matt 3:13), than Mark said nothing about Nazareth.
If that is true, what is the earliest extant mention of Nazareth? It would be Matthew 2:23. Matthew simply made a mistake. Matthew didn't know what Nazarene meant, confused it with Nazarite (for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: Judges 13:5), and compounded the error by creating a ficticious town Nazareth.

The qualification "extant" weakens the point because the town is presumably mentioned in Q as it is currently understood. (Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Q, but most critical scholars are.)

Stephen

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The qualification "extant" weakens the point because the town is presumably mentioned in Q as it is currently understood. (Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Q, but most critical scholars are.)

Stephen

Where is Nazareth mentioned in Q, presuming that Q existed?

Jake

S.C.Carlson · 07-19-2005, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Where is Nazareth mentioned in Q, presuming that Q existed?

It's in Q 4:16 (Matt 4:13 // Luke 4:16); see James M. Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000): 42-43.

S.C.Carlson · 07-19-2005, 08:46 AM

Of course, if you can show that Matt invented Nazareth, then that could be made part of an argument against the existence of Q.

jakejonesiv · 07-19-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

It's in Q 4:16 (Matt 4:13 // Luke 4:16); see James M. Robinson et al., The Critical Edition of Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000): 42-43.

I don't accpet the theory of Q, but for sake of argument:

No, Matt 4:13 is leaving Nazareth, Luke 4:16 is entering Nazareth. These passages are in no way parallel.

Luke 4:16 is paralled in Matthew 13:54 and Mark 6:1, so from a strict point of view shouldn't be included in the hypothetical Q document. Burton Mack does not include it. http://www.cygnus-study.com/pageq.html

In addition, both Matthew and Mark do not name Nazareth, instead they merely say home town.

http://tinyurl.com/dflkn

Jake Jones

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2005, 08:46 AM	#269
S.C.Carlson Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 1,307	Of course, if you can show that Matt invented Nazareth, then that could be made part of an argument against the existence of Q.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.