Ted Hoffman

Joel,
Thanks for your response. This is very interesting indeed. I find plenty of "loose talk" from your side. I do not know whether it is because you find the position I hold non-respectable, or whether it is because you find those reading this thread as not serious and therefore you can just write anything and it will fly: that you can afford to be careless. I would like to just illustrate some of it and hope that somewhat, you will desist from angaging in it.

Plenty of it. Let me just course through them fleetingly.

Hopefully, we have dealt with the "Frazer is 19th century. Let's leave him there".

You keep bringing up Freke and Gandy. When talking about ideal types for example, you said F & G got sloppy with their ideal types and you went further to use them as a showcase illustrating that approaching the problem from essentialist notions is a methodological misstep.

I wasn't talking about Freke and Gandy, so their sloppiness is irrelevant to the discussion. I specifically cited Robert Price. This same straw-manning, well-poisoning approach is what you used when I asked you whether you agreed there were any parallels. You mentioned "the greedy reductionism and parallelomania of Freke and Gandy or Acharya S".
What this means is that when I mention an approach by Doherty or Price, you parade F&G and Archaya S next to them, and then after lumping them together, you pick an attribute from the latter two then you regard the weakness as representative of the aforementioned approach.
We know that the works of F & G and Archaya do not pass when placed under close scrutiny. We cant say the same with respect to Doherty and Price. In fact, I even bet that the word "ideal type" does not appear in their book. Please stop this approach.
It is fallacious (F & G are red herrings) and it is not fair to Price and Doherty. Each case must be examined on its own merit.

And while we are at ideal types, you write: " 'Ideal types' are scholarly constructs, not actually existing mythical figures". Nobody said they were "actually existing mythical figures". Price explained that they "are yardsticks distilled from common features, yardsticks employed in turn to measure and make sense of the features the phenomena do not have in common". Scholars *do* construct categories of entities in all fields. Even in evolutionary science, structural homology, in protein and nucleic acid sequences helps delineate common ancestry and the like. Even Gerd Theissen "structural homologue" and George Nickelsburg, in Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life, when comparing Danielic "son of man" and the Pauline one and the one in Enoch. Nobody claims that groups have concrete existence.

This same loose talk is evident when you attempt to compare Paul with scientology founder. It is invalid to compare L. Ron Hubbard with Paul. We *know* Hubbard sat down and invented whole cloth. Paul *converted* to an existing cult, and while he added his own interpretations, and could violently disagree with aspects of the gospel about Jesus, if he was totally unlike his antecedent he wouldn't have been able to move within their ranks nor would they have regarded him as "preaching the good news of the faith which once he tried to destroy."

Jesus Christ Joel.

I will leave the above two as examples showing that you are getting uncritical in what you are writing. I know you are not smug.

I enjoy reading what you write. Oftentimes, no, not 'oftentimes', 'always', I get educated from reading what you write (I printed The Rise of God but haven't found time to read it yet). but you do seem to sometimes go on a tangent. When you mention Pearcean structuralism and Saussurean structuralism, in a board like this, which talks about Jesus and Crossan and Kloppenborg, you should know you are losing your readers. I don't want to characterize such verbiage as smoke or hot air, but when you introduce such new terminology as Pearcean structuralism without stating what you mean, and when you go as far as looking at John's logos through the triadic lens of Pearcean structuralism, surely, you are like a mathematician using fancy formulas to calculate the probability that Jesus actually said Eloi Eloi Lema sabachthani. The semiotics of structuralism, whereas interesting, are at best, tangential as far as examining the meaning of a certain word by a certain author (we have textual, source, literary criticism etc) and whereas I agree that Doherty introduced Levi Strauss, you really did throw readers here to the deep end of poststructuralist sea without a life jacket. I am sure that talk about boundary conditions, and iconic vs symbolic level, binary oppositions and contrastivist theories was lost on many of us here. What I am saying is, stay with us, tone it down. I don't want to read three paragraphs from you and "assume" I know what you are talking about, I want to understand what you are actually saying. By the way, you were referring to Frank Pearce of The Radical Durkheim?

It is not helpful to declare that "a Pearcean analysis of Ulansey" reveals Ulansey as a load of crock because the members of this board are unaware of any such "Pearcean analysis" having been undertaken in the past. That is gobbleddygook. AFAIK, Mithras scholars deride Ulansey because he goes beyond what they believe the evidence supports. There is no published material that takes Ulansey's work through "Pearcean analysis" so we cannot verify or even weigh your claims regarding the results of a "Pearcean analysis" of Ulansey's work. Suffice it to say that we do not know whether "Pearcean analysis" would be the correct methodology for testing the correctness of Ulansey's work. Telling us that a theory has not been propounded by someone before also tells us nothing about the merits of that particular theory. So, your statement, that you "know of no one who seriously ascribes an astronomical context to the Inanna myth", tells us nothing about the merits or demerits of the "astronomical stuff by Ulansey". Such sweeping statements and obscure judgements do not help the discussion: they only reveal your bias. They do not indicate to us why your position is the correct one.

I will look at the discussion at Ebla by the way. I think Kirby is asking very good questions.

Regarding ritual and myth, you write that "For instance, Jesus' ordeal down the Via Dolorossa might be ripe for a ritual reenactment, but in fact this is only practiced among Catholics, and usually in the developing world (Philippines, Latin America). Protestants, mainline Catholicism, the Orthodox, etc. all do not practice this associated ritual."
I know of those that regard the the Via Dolorossa ordeal as a later enlargement on the basic myth of Jesus' suffering, extracted from the Gospels. It is not a myth in itself. It's a literary creation. In my view, your failure to invoke literary analysis has led you to mistake a literary creation for something else.

You add: "Or another example: Osiris' descent to the netherworld may seem ripe for a fertility ritual, but in fact the ritual is associated with Pharaonic succession. Thus the Frazerian "seasonal" rituals may seem like they are the right time and place, etc. but the association with e.g., Inanna, Baal, Attis, Osiris, etc."

I don't know how you determine these "ripeness" that you talk of, but you have again become obscure in your presentation. You have failed to answer the question I asked. I asked how you separate myth from ritual, you started by repeating your earlier contention, which I was questioning when you wrote "the rituals (i.e., the sacred rites) of any religion develop without a necessary connection with the myth".
I believe you are mistaken with respect to via D. The Osiris example is obscure and at the same time fails to delineate ritual from myth.
It is also important to remember that nobody is contending that every myth must have a corresponding ritual. What I am challenging is the validity of your objection (myth is separate from ritual), which appears spurious.
By all means go off to a tangent on functionalism in myth if it helps make your point clearer.

You fault me for "using vague, general words to establish the parallel". Which words are vague? Is it a mistake to use general words?

You state "A god leaving heaven is a standard motif of plenty of stories about gods, since conflict tends to occur in the realms below."
Did all Egyptian gods leave heaven to get involved with humans? What about the Greek Gods? I think the answer to this is obvious. To use a recent example, Asclepius never left heaven (or Olympus for that matter) to come and heal the people he healed. He was born on earth and acted on earth.
Your objection is therefore not valid.

You write "Jesus being killed by archons (note, Doherty is alone in his use of archon as mystical beings alone, it is used normally as earthly "magistrates" in Hellenistic works)."

Jesus, Joel, you really ought to read some NT scholarship. Several scholars support Doherty's insterpretation of archons - heck, Kirby did a survey of this a while back. To be sure, I list them below.

1. Conzelmann 2. W. J. P. Boyd 3. C. K. Barrett4. Paula Fredriksen5. Jean Hering6. Delling 7. S. G. F. Brandon. 8. Paul Ellingworth9. Thackeray 10. Schmiedel. 11. J. H. Charlesworth

I also know of 9 scholars who disagree though. The point is, Doherty is not alone in his interpretation of Pauline archons.

This was my own argument. If it was Doherty's, I would state so. I am the one you have to deal with. The statement above is based on your error above. So again, it is an invalid criticism and therefore worthless.

So, is it three days or not?

I was using your own methodology. Are there thematic similarities or not? How are we to compare the stories if we do not make judgement oin them (ie. interpret them)?
What do you mean when you write these are "thematic similarities based on the interpretation of the stories ". A theme is not an interpretation? Is a theme a concrete entity?
Yes, the language is specific in the case of Noah and Unapitshim, but this is a red herring and leaves my parallel unexamined.
The degree of parallel cannot be the same because these are different authors, using different languages, and with different objectives and background, and using different sources.

The degree of plagiarism cannot be expected to be the same for all cases where parallelism is argued. Why is it okay for you to allow "only a few details like measurements of the ark, types of animals" to pass, yet you want to fault my parallel contrived differences like "more than 3 days in the ancient eyes" and "interpretation"?

Carrier, thank you so much for your detailed response. I appreciate your hesitation much better now. I would like to ccomment on your statement:
I do not know what you would need as proof. What about the sects Eusebius mentions? Bard Ehrman's work Lost Christianities, and Orthodox Corruption of Scripture ?
Don't you agree that we had, Ebionites who saw Christianity as part of Judaism (believed in Yahweh), and viewed Jesus as fully human, the anti-Jewish Marcionites who viewed the God of the Old Testament as evil, and viewed Jesus as an emissary from the true God who would liberate humanity, and various "Gnostic" sects who promoted a variety of views about Jesus, usually denying his humanity and Docetists, who thought that Jesus's suffering was illusory since the real Jesus did not have a real body. And Adaptionists, who thought that Jesus was only adapted to receive the power of the Christ at the time of his baptism, and that it left him on the cross and so on and so forth?

Does Doherty have to prove these too?

Vork, that was good on Brunner. Andrew thanks for clearing up on Plutarch and Demeter. Amaleq, thanks for housekeeping. In programming parlance, like in Java or c++, we call it 'garbage collection'.

GakuseiDon

Ted, Price does say some strange things to create parallels. From here:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_murdock.htm
I can't confirm this story of Kama's death by arrow. From what I can tell, he was burned to ashes after cheesing off Shiva, who repents and has Kama re-incarnated, not resurrected.

But even if the myth is as Price has it, this appears to be an example of parallelomania, in Price at least.

Celsus

Hello again,

With respect to F&G and Acharya, I brought them up at the time Carrier (sorry) suggested that they were a "direct parallel". Since it might be a direct parallel only according to the methodology of those three, since the retraction, I don't think I've brought them up again (yes, I consider the alleged similarities that bad--here's an exercise for you Jacob: draw out the plot-lines for Inanna's descent without letting the Jesus story get in the way: emphasise those points that are important to the myth on its own terms).

And no, it isn't three days, to be blunt, and your continued mention of this is making me feel embarassed for you. If you want me to speculate, I estimate a journey from Nippur to (unknown city) to Eridu to take about 15 days at the very least, and a journey from Eridu to the Zagros mountains over a month. So let's be generous and have it as 40 days in the myth. Does that mean anything to the myth? Of course not, so what's the point in speculating? The point is that three days is inconsequential to the length of time Inanna may have taken to resurrect. It's like a movie: we see everything happening in a couple of hours, but sometimes something on the screen tells us directly that a passage of time has occurred (per the mention of three days in Inanna), while other times, it is implicit (Ninshubur travelling through Nippur and Eridu, and the two messengers being created and then descending to the underworld). This the last I have to say on this matter. If you don't understand the point yet, I'm not going to try again.

On archons, I have no qualms with it meaning either thing, but the point is that there is a regress of signification (do you understand this point? If not, see the Ebla thread) that has to be examined first. If we take it as Ignatius does, we haven't closed the hermeneutic circle, since Ignatius may have been interpreting Paul. If we try to identify it the same way John does, then we have to demonstrate how "cosmos" and "age" are being used interchangeably or that John and Paul intend the different terms to mean the same thing. I'm not concerned with disputing any single instance of the terms defined by Doherty (it was an example, and perhaps a bad one). I'm more interested in examining the principles by which he derives the meanings of words or creates his own chain of signification; and these principles always demonstrate his a priori commitment to a mythical Jesus.

The other charge I find simply bizarre. You bumped this thread by goading people that there was no challenge to Doherty, yet when I come up with one you accuse me of not putting it in terms you can understand? With respect to Lévi-Strauss, structuralism, Charles Sanders Peirce (sorry, I misspelled the first time round), Barthes, etc. I make no apologies for the technical language, and it's up to you to rise to the level if you want to engage the scholarship, not expect it to come down to you. I don't have the time or inclination to go into a Peircean reading of Ulansey, but just consider that the "astrological" signs he "identified" require a Ulanseyan interpretant (were ancient Persians/Romans anything like that? He doesn't and can't demonstrate it). If you think that the problems with structuralism are "tangential" then you haven't understood a thing I said.

If someone wishes to comment on the nature of myth (and have their work treated seriously), then they better be damned sure they know the anthropological and semiotic arenas, the problems with structuralism, etc. very well before trying to make universalist statements like Doherty did. The vast majority of scholarship on myth comes from anthropology, not Biblical Studies, and inter-disciplinary cross-overs, while challenging, are extremely rewarding (e.g. Rob Price's entertaining use of Girard). While I understand that you have trouble getting hold of materials, I can't be writing an introductory series every time I wish to engage an argument (though the Ebla thread is trying to make it simpler for those who haven't figured out what I'm yammering about), and a technical rebuttal can't always be made in simple language (it took me almost ten paragraphs to explain/simplify what I was talking about, and even then I missed out things).

I will not apologise or making sweeping statements that do not tackle every single last theory out there, because I am only human, and my time is limited. If you or anyone wants to cite Ulansey, bring the arguments here and then I'll explain. I don't as a general rule do people's homework for them. In general, I have not paid much attention to Doherty. Having seen his triumphalist style of debate while being wrong or ignorant on basic or technical points, I am even less impressed. While you may find me equally unimpressive, I can do nothing about my use of jargon to explain why Lévi-Strauss' universalist tendencies and structuralism which Doherty relies on are mistaken (I wouldn't expect a physicist to be able to explain string theory to me without use of very advanced mathematics either).

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Joel, I find you very impressive. Sorry I wore you down :banghead: - that is what I was avoiding. Like I said, the influence of Inanna's myth on the Jesus parallel being argued is not necessary for Doherty's case. I was just exploring it for fun. That you are getting splenetic means you are way too serious for sport.

It is unfortunate that you have not read Doherty's work and therefore cannot appreciate it. But to blame his "his triumphalist style of debate", for that failure, IMHO, is not a satisfactory explanation. Carrier has and whereas he criticizes the theory and knows its weaknesses, doesn't camouflage any misgivings on the theory on Doherty's alleged "triumphalist style of debate".

I see a manifestation of what is known in scholarly circles as the Icarus complex, whereby, when an approach works so well within a certain academic field, say post-structuralist approach in linguistics or comparative religion, the victors in such a contest come out feeling that that approach can succeed in any other arena. The way the myth has it that Icarus managed to use the wings to fly off the Island. When he saw the wings worked so well, he flew closer to the sun.

We know what happened when he got too close to the sun.

How can you claim to "challenge Doherty" while you also write "in general, I have not paid much attention to Doherty". How an you criticize a theory, or an author, you are not adequately familiar with?

My objections against your obscure presentation have got nothing to do with materials I have at my disposal. You may have noticed that only Vork addressed something on underdetermination in your post. And readers here will not engage you in fields tangential to NT scholarship. As a writer, and IMO, you are a fine one, you should be able to discern this. All that pomo talk is fine. It is the density of the technical jargon that I objected to.

If I am wrong on this, I am sure someone will point out.

Doherty is not God yet (as Toto would put it) so he may be wrong on "technical details". Carrier specifically retracted his "Platonic interpretation on Sumerian texts" but maintained that "The parallel between the Inanna tale we have and Doherty's theory consists solely of the death and resurrection not taking place on earth". Which was the original point anyway.

To drag us deep into the forest of Sumerian and Akkadian texts and then fault us for not seeing the squirrels under the oak trees, and then use that weakness as representative of our entire vision, is misleading. It is clear that the subject is multi-disciplinary and whereas we all have knowledge gaps, we know where the bulk of Doherty's thesis lies. And it is not in the thick forest of Sumerian myths.

Appealing to your humanity and limited time for making mistakes is okay. I have admitted error in this thread too. And you don't have to shift the burden of proof with "bring the arguments here and then I'll explain". I respect you a lot but you don't expect to be taken at your word here.

Superior knowledge in one field does not guarantee the same in other fields. We learn from each other. Failing on a few technical points does not itself prove a theory false. To do that, you have to read the work, synthesize it, identify the central pillar supporting the superstructure, then take out that pillar with clinical precision, and watch with ecstatic delight as the theory goes to pieces.

As Vork would put it, at the end of the day, we are all fine people. Intelligent, good looking, articulate and making mistakes and learning as we get better. Heh, that was fun. Thanks for your time and fine criticism. I learnt a lot from you. I am sure as hell going to immerse myself in anthropology and poststructuralist take on mythemes and the like. And I have to read Kramer.

How is the new laptop?

GDon from your link, this is what Price writes regarding Archaya's work.
Celsus, could you, in the unlikely event that you get the time and inclination, write a critical review of Doherty's thesis?
After all, that was Kirby's request when he started this thread a year ago.

the_cave

Yeah, Doherty seems to be sticking to a false dichotomy here, if this is in fact his position. Carrier isn't doing anything besides being a good historian--qualifying judgments, slowing the rush to judgment, and so forth. Skepticism about skepticism is certainly no sin! There is no need to take an absolute view one way or the other. Doherty's thesis is only a few years old--an infant in terms of historical views. It seems to me that choices based on balance of probability necessarily have to be qualified.

Doherty also seems to be encouraging a very strict interpretation of things--"The question of Jesus' existence" that he raises is technically only relevant to Paul's Jesus. It seems he feels there is no room for any history to enter the mix--but there's really no reason why it couldn't. As Carrier says, there is "wiggle room" for a variety of interpretations, models of historical development, etc. The debate will probably remain somewhat hopeless until these things are sorted out (and I kind of doubt they ever will be. Ah well.)

Celsus

Jacob,

I know you are sincere and trying very hard, which is why I'm not treating you like some of our other recent interlopers, though your latest post reads like one particular one. A paragraph like:
...shows that you haven't grasped this discussion at all (and no I won't explain, you better review what has already been said because I am done repeating myself).

The laptop is fine, thanks. Windows sucks. And no, I won't write a review of Doherty if "readers here will not engage [me] in fields tangential to NT scholarship" when actually the study of myth is integral, if seemingly foreign to people who know nothing about it.

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Celsus:
Lets not get patronizing now. This statement implies that you are putting no effort in the discussion. This coming from someone who invoked human fallibility to explain his errors is ironic.
I wrote earlier:
What I meant above was the Icarus Paradox. Those who have read the works of Michael Porter of Havard University will be familiar with it. It refers to the unwillingness to abandon a good strategy that worked well in one situation even when it no longer works.

The study of myth is integral to religion in general, but less so to NT theory. But that is not what we were doing, were we? You were supposed to be refuting Doherty's theory. The title of this thread.

But you concentrated on a small bit of it and treated it as if you were actually dealing with the whole theory. The tail does not wag the dog. So you can not twist the tail and claim you have wagged the dog.

The questions Kirby is asking at Ebla should tell you that you are not being understood. It is not only me 'trying hard'.

I will come at Ebla and engage you on your own terms. I will be intent on showing that your narrow approach, which I see as tunnel vision, is inferior in handling Doherty's theory as a whole, and is perhaps being misapplied.

See you soon.

Ted Hoffman

This is what Carrier wrote yesterday:
We must be understanding him very differently.

Richard Carrier

Wow. What nonsense. First, your last analogy has no bearing at all on historiography. So I'll disregard it. On your point in general: the changes made since WWII to the historical profession are nearly as great as those made to science between the 17th and 18th centuries. They are huge, incredibly important changes in method and fact-gathering, as well as in the standards of peer review and graduate-level education, and incorporate earth-shattering changes in paradigm regarding the integration of the social sciences into historical interpretation (sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics).

To suggest that history done before this is worth our attention is like suggesting that 14th century treatises on magnetism are worth our attention. Complete poppycock. Though there may well be useful and correct observations in those 14th century treatises, they were all superceded by the De Magnete of Gilbert in 1600, whose methods and findings were far superior. There is no point in reading any treatise before his. And yet, if you want to study magnetism today, should you read Gilbert? Hardly! You go to the most recent, updated works on magnetism that reflect centuries of progress, distilling the relevant, improving methodology and accuracy, and abandoning error and unproven conjecture.

History is the same. Apart from some few examples of mere fact-gathering with minimal interpretation (which modern historians still rely on), current historical work represents progress, not replacement--modern historians have kept what was correct from previous generations, often providing it even more secure factual grounds, but they have also abandoned all the error and unproven conjecture, and replaced it with new, more accurate judgments and findings. To appeal to their obsolete predecessors on some point of history is as silly as appealing to Gilbert's predecessors on some point of magnetism, or at best it is as silly as appealing to Gilbert--instead of Maxwell, or Einstein, or the current leading consensus in the field.

Again, you will have to do better than this if you expect to be taken seriously.

Richard Carrier

I'm undecided. There are problems of chronology and relationship (who affected whom and how). There is no doubt, for example, that Christianity is so similar to Essenism that it represents a sect thereof (we know of about six other sects of Essenism, and Essenism is itself a sect of Samaritanism which is in turn a sect of Judaism). There may well have been other Essenic sects (e.g. the Therapeutae) which may have evolved in parallel to Christianity, not "into" Christianity. Even if eventually absorbed, that does not mean that Christianity did not exist until the merger. And similarly for any other external movement--did the Pauline creed exist anywhere else besides the Jerusalem church of Peter and gang? I doubt it. And yet that is the only thing that distinguishes Christianity from other sects of Essenism, and in fact is what makes Christianity "Christianity."

Yes, external influences no doubt changed Christianity by the time the Gospels were written, just as they continued to change Christianity throughout all history. But that is not what Doherty is arguing: he is arguing that there were several movements proclaiming a risen Jesus that all arose independently. I just see no support for that hypothesis--or at least insufficient support to be confident in it. There may have been Jesus movements that preached different things about the messiah, but the movement that became the modern Church is clearly an evolution of the movement that began with the appearances under Pilate to Peter and Paul and gang. It began with a singular event, in a singular place, within a singular sect. All other Jesus talk before then in other sects was different and more in line with standard Jewish teaching about the messiah (from the expectant to the mystical--a la Philo). Thus, when we are faced with the need to explain the rise of Christianity, it is the creed first preached by Peter and gang, and modified shortly thereafter by Paul with Peter and gang's eventual permission, that we need to explain the rise of. As for the evolution of Christianity, that's a different story--by all means we need to take into account how external groups and their different ways of talking about the messiah affected the development of the Church(es).

But note that I am not adamant about this. Again, Doherty could be right. We just don't know. The data is too sparse. But on this one point, I think Doherty's case is the weakest and most contentious--and unnecessary to everything else he argues.



All late developments as far as the evidence can prove--thus the order of chronology cannot be established as required by Doherty's many-to-one thesis. The only plausible exception is the Ebionites--which, by description, sound to me like the original Jerusalem Church. As Paul himself says, though that church accepted his gospel, it did not adopt it--it remained a Jewish movement. And it certainly seems that Paul thought Jesus was fully human, too (either literally or figuratively, depending on whether Doherty is right), until he was adopted by God at his resurrection, which Paul equates to an exaltation. Thus, the Ebionites are probably remnants of the original Christian movement, which failed because the tide turned so soundly against Jews after their two wars, whereas Paul's sect of Christianity expanded into Gentile territory and by adopting antisemitic views was able to avoid being stigmatized as Jewish. There were other sects already (Apollos) but we know next to nothing about them. In general, they appear to have differed only in their eschatology or soteriology, not on whether Jesus walked on earth (it is frustrating, I know, but Paul says too little here).

In the case of Marcion there is absolutely no doubt his was a novel evolution from Paul's sect toward a more Gentile view, and therefore was not an independent movement that merged with others to "become" Christianity. On all other views, it is hard to determine when or where they arose, or if they even differed from what the original Christians or Paul taught, and it is certainly not possible to determine whether they evolved from them or arose independently of them.