Metacrock

Raglan did not invent the scale. He did not live in 1936. he was a professional solider. He was not a social scientist.

If the book existed I would be able to find it on Amazon. Why don't they have it listed?



who did that? Not Jesus


However, he fits the profile very well.


That's not Greek! American Heritage is an English Dictionary! Geezzz, shit! sorry wrong langauge.


Good, Metacrock. You now know what to look for when you proofread your writing.

LP: Pure hairsplitting. (Jesus Christ) can very reasonably be called a hero.

How so?


Which leaves unexplained why the Lord Raglan profile works so well.


why cause its made up? Of course it "works well" its taylor made to show that Jesus is a myth.and by golly it sure does show that. amazing!

Metacrock

I put Jesus on the Schleirmacher-Troelsch scale and it shows conclusively that he was a historical person. He got the highest score next to John Foster Dulles. So here we have incredible scientific proof friends.Yes the wonders of science never cease. :wave:

if you would like information on the Schleiermacher-Trolsche scale, it can be found in the book Theological Hiend Sight circa 1976. By the great Theologian J.D. Harman.

Metacrock

You know I've proven over and over again that when you in real mythology books you find that none of these guys really stack up to the myther's claims. Now I see myther sights which say that Krishna was crucified and rose from the dead. But in the Bahagavod Gita it says he ws killed with an Arrow and noting about rising from the dead. So I don't belive you. I think your list is phony. I want you to take real mythology book, not myther books, but real mythology books, and show me from them that there are any stories of Krishna's youth for example.

why should we use Moses as a standard of myth when it's only your assumption that he didn't live? Who says he didn;t?

Peter Kirby

First: Yes, Virginia, there was a Lord Raglan, and he published an article in 1934 and his book The Hero in 1936. And, yes, he was not a professional academic.

The book is available in reprint on Amazon for $9.56: The Hero

There was once an article by "Justin Martyr" about him: Raglan Reduced. (Why are the interesting articles disappearing from JPH's site? Though this is still up.)

On thing that J.M. didn't mention: Lord Raglan didn't propose that his list of characteristics would allow one to determine the likelihood that, underneath the story, there was a historical person who was the germination for it (whether there was a historical Arthur, for example). Raglan was attempting to provide a set of "family resemblances" for the Hero-type in mythology. (The idea of "family resemblances" is that none of them are necessary or sufficient conditions of inclusion in the set, but that a goodly number of them make one a recognizable member. This is a point that J.M. ignores.) This says nothing about whether any given Hero can be traced back to a historical figure; indeed, hypothetically speaking, one could have a completely factual biography of a person, and that person could fit the Hero archetype. (The real question is whether "the Hero" can be defined even loosely. J.M. helpfully provides a bibliography of attempts to do so.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

About your idea that christos has the meaning of "hero" in Greek: there's no fudging around it, that's completely false.

The word hêrôs ('HRWS) means "hero" in Greek. Here is the LSJ entry. (The word for chariot-driver or horseman, hippeus, and the word for prime leader, archêgetês, sometimes have similar connotations.)

On the word christos (from the LSJ again):

christos , ê, on, ( [chriô] ) to be rubbed on, used as ointment or salve, opp. pistos, A.Pr.480, cf. E.Hipp.516, Triclin.ad Theoc.11.1; to elaion to ch. anointing oil, LXX Le.21.10.
II. of persons, anointed, ho hiereus ho ch. ib.4.5,16, 6.22: pl., ib.2 Ma.1.10.
2. esp. of the Kings of Israel, ho ch. Kuriou ib.1 Ki.24.7, cf. Ps.17 (18).51; also tôi ch. mou Kurôi Is.45.1 ; pl., of the patriarchs, Ps.104 (105).15.
3. in NT, ho ch. the Messiah, Ev.Matt.2.4, etc.; ho ch. Kuriou Ev.Luc.2.26 ; then used as pr. n. of Jesus, Iêsous ch. Ev.Matt.1.1 , etc.; Iêsous ho legomenos ch. ib.16.

From Kittel et al., Theological dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume, pg. 1322:

A. General Usage.
1. chr�*�?, found in Homer and then in the tragic dramatists, means “to rub,�? “to stroke,�? or, with oils etc., “to smear,�? “to anoint.�? Use varies, so that we find the oiling of weapons, their smearing with poison, the rubbing of birds’ wings with pitch, whitewashing or painting, and rubbing with a garment, as well as anointing after bathing, or the anointing of the sick or the dead.
2. christós means “smeared on,�? “anointed,�? and as a noun (tó christón) “ointment.�? It never relates to persons in the nonbiblical sphere.
3. chr�*sma (also chr�*ma) means “what is rubbed on,�? i.e., “ointment,�? “whitewash.�?
Medically it denotes a “healing ointment.�?

Many examples are given in the unabridged Kittel and are available on request.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

I'm not doubting you. But I did do serveal google searches and an Amazon search and couldn't find any of that.

Metacrock

My first year Greek teacher told me it meant hero.But he was from Yale.


really though, if a Greek wanted to say "put some sun tan oil on my back" would he say "christ me some sun tan oil?" NO I think it has some slang use or soemthing along the lines of hero. Show me some examples?

Toto

Two of us here (maybe more) saw Doherty. His speech will show up on his website at some time. He didn't break any new ground; he is occupied right now with earning a living and with the mechanics of distributing his books.

He is not interested in "debate" of the sort that he started to do with Nomad. He would be interested in an exchange of ideas with someone who takes his ideas seriously and can interact with them.

Peter Kirby

Does he have an e-mail address that you can relate to me privately? I'd like to see his comment on the data found in the books.

It's possible that he was commenting on the Jewish Messiah concept (for which Christos was used in the Septuagint), which was taken up by the New Testament authors, rather than the word's etymological origin in Greek, which is well-known.

The verb χ�?ίω (chri�?) would be used. In the present active imperative (2nd person singular): χ�?ίε (chrie) as in:

χ�?ίε το μ�?�?ον �?πί του νῶτου μου

chrie to muron epi tou n�?tou mou
"Rub the oil upon my back"

To put it plainly, what you think is wrong.

Okay, here is the unabridged Kittel:


1. χ�?ίω, found from Hom., does not occur in the Attic orators. In Plato we find only a form of �?γχ�?ίω “to prick�? (par. κεντΪω) in Phaedr., 251d, which might pt. to a basic sense “to quarrel�? → n. 1. The word does not occur either in authentic Aristot. or the comedians apart from Aristoph. Fr;, 581 (FAC, I, 730): �? δ᾽ αὗ ΣοφοκλΪους τοῦ μΪλιτι κεχ�?ιμΪνου … But we find it in the tragedians, Hdt., and Xenoph., and also in post. class. prose and non-literary texts. It occurs in several pre-class. and class. dialects and in post-class. usage it is attested in pap. and inscr. as a normal koine word of non-Attic derivation Ref. might also be made to the LXX, while in the NT it is used. only of Jesus and once of His community, 2 C. 1:21. Elsewhere the NT has ἀλείφω (→ I, 229, 30 ff.) and μυ�?ίζω (→ IV, 801, 1 ff.).
χ�?ίω means act. “to rub the body or parts of it,�? “to stroke it,�? mid. “to rub or stroke oneself.�?1 When used with oils or fats (→ II, 470, 28; IV, 800, 2) it means “to smear,�? “to anoint,�? “to anoint oneself.�? Poison from the robe of Deianira for Hercules χ�?ίει δολοποιὸς ἀνάγκα πλευ�?ὰ π�?οστακΪντος ἰου, Soph.Trach., 832 f.; it was rubbed into Hercules’ body by the garment. Camels were curried �?χ�?ίσθησαν, P. Flor., III, 364, 23 (3rd cent. a.d.). Of anointing the body after bathing we read: καὶ ἔχ�?ισεν λίπ᾽ �?λαίῳ, Hom.Od., 3, 466; 10, 364, λοῦσαν καὶ χ�?ῖσαν �?λαίῳ 4, 49, cf. also 6, 96 and 19, 320; 6, 220. For anointing by a deity cf. Od., 18, 193 f., and λοῦσθαι μὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Διός, χ�?ίεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἡλίου, Hdt., III, 124, 1. It is said of a sick person: καὶ τ�?ίψας μεθ᾽ ὄξους Χ�?ῖσον, P. Masp., II, 67141, 2, recto 24 (6th cent. a.d.), and of the anointing of the dead: χ�?ῖσόν τ᾽ ἀμβ�?οσίῃ, Hom.Il., 16, 670, also 680. Aphrodite ῥοδόεντι δὲ χ�?ῖεν �?λαίῳ ἀμβ�?οσίῳ the dead Hector, Hom.Il., 23, 186 f. Weapons were rubbed with grease or oil, Hom.Od., 21, 179 (�?πιχ�?ίω); Xenoph.Cyrop., VII, 1, 2, arrows with poison, Hom.Od., 1, 262. Medea says of the robe which she has sent to Jason’s bride: τοιοῖσδε χ�?ίσω φα�?μάκοις δω�?ήματα, Eur.Med., 789. The robe of Deianira for Hercules is rubbed with lamb’s wool, Soph.Trach., 675 and 689, and birds’ wings are rubbed with pitch, Hdt., IV, 195, 2. Transf. we read in Eur.Med., 632 f.: μήποτ᾽, ὦ δΪσποιν᾽, �?π᾽ �?μοὶ χ�?υσΪων τόξων �?φείης ἱμΪ�?ῳ χ�?ίσασ᾽ ἄφυκτον οἰστόν, cf. also Plut.Vit. Dec. Orat., 7 (II, 841e); ο�? μΪλανι, ἀλλὰ θανάτῳ χ�?ίοντα τὸν κάλαμον, P. Oxy., XII, 1413, 19 f. 24 and XIV, 1665, 5 f. (both 3rd cent. a.d.) use χ�?ίω for “to supply anointing oil.�? From the basic sense “to rub over�? we get such meanings as “to colour,�? “to whitewash,�? “to paint,�? e.g., matted, red-coloured goatskins αἰγΪας … ψιλὰς πε�?ὶ τὴν �?σθῆτα θυσανωτὰς … κεχ�?ισμΪνας �?�?ευθεδάνῳ, Hdt., IV, 189, 2.
2. χ�?ιστός, χ�?ιστή, χ�?ιστόν is a verbal adj. and. means “spreadable,�? “smeared on,�? “anointed,�? as noun τὸ χ�?ιστόν “ointment,�? cf. πότε�?α δὲ χ�?ιστὸν ἢ ποτὸν τὸ φά�?μακον; Eur.Hipp., 516; Aesch.Prom., 480. ἀ�?τίχ�?ιστον means “fresh ointment�? Soph.Trach., 687. χ�?ιστός is never related to persons outside the LXX, the NT, and dependent writings.
3. χ�?ῖσμα, also χ�?ῖμα, means “what is spread on, rubbed on,�? “ointment,�? used also in medicine “healing ointment,�? Diosc.Mat. Med., I, 8, 3; 21; 66, 3, also “means of rubbing on,�? “colour,�? “whitewash.�? The word is uncommon, e.g., τοῦτο τὸ χ�?ῖμα, Xenoph.Symp., 2, 4; πῦ�? ἔκαιον καὶ �?χ�?ίοντο· πολὺ γὰ�? �?νταῦθα ηὑ�?ίσκετο χ�?ῖμα (“fat�?) ᾧ �?χ�?ῶντο ἀντ᾽ �?λαίου, An., IV, 12 f., in magic, P. Lond., I, 121, 873 f. (3rd cent. a.d.): τῷ σεληνιακῷ χ�?ίσματι, cf. 879; χ�?ῖμα occurs, e.g., in P. Oxy., III, 529, 3 (2nd cent. a.d.).
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (Vol. 9, Page 494-496). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.


best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Of course, casue I'm a peice of shit. us peices of shit are always wrong. And being wrong on that fact just I'm wrong on everything right?

I studied Greekin 1985-1990. So I have no idea where the guy is today.