GakuseiDon

I've seen scores for Jesus as high as 19 on Raglan's Hero scale. But that seems high to me. One problem seems to be how the "grey areas" are counted, I think. Does Raglan give some leeway on how the categories are to be applied?

Here are the 22 categories, with my own count:

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
0. A virgin, but not royal (even if a descendent of David, she is never described as a royal)

2. His father is a king and
0

3. often a near relative of the mother, but
0

4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
1

5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
1

6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
1

7. He is spirited away, and
1

8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
0. He wasn't reared in a far country. The Bible has the family flee to Egypt, but he seems to have been reared in Galilee.

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
0. Though this is a grey area. We are told he is a child prodigy and was found teaching, but I'm not sure how Raglan would score this. Does "nothing" mean "nothing", or "nothing substantial"?

10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
0. Though maybe a grey area if "kingdom" refers to a "kingdom of God".

11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
0

12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
0

13. becomes king
0. Though maybe a grey area if "king" means others declare him as king. The Magi declare him to be "king of the Jews" at birth, and Romans mock him on this, but Christ never actually "becomes king" that fits the pattern linking 12 and 14. Luke 23:42 suggests that he didn't become king until AFTER he died.

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
0. He didn't reign at all. He "lived" uneventfully wouldn't be accurate either.

15. Prescribes laws but
1. Though a grey area IMO. Are "ethical principles" laws? But links with 16, so I will score it 1.

16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
1.

17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
0. Not driven from a throne, and not driven from the city.

18. He meets with a mysterious death
0. He didn't meet with a mysterious death, though Pilate was surprised he did so quickly. But a spear was thrust into him to make him die quicker.

19. often at the top of a hill.
1.

20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.
1. (Though I'm a bit unsure whether this should is invaliditated entirely from the overall count since Jesus had no children).

21. his body is not buried, but nevertheless
1.

22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.
1.

So, I give a total of 10, plus 3 grey areas. So a range of 10 to 13. I certainly can't see how 19 could be reached, without fudging how Christ was a "king", and having his ministry as his "reign".

Chris Weimer

The problem GakuseiDon is that you're using all the books combined. We need to separate the testing according to each book.

Luke, for instance, describes Mary as blessed above any other woman, which is akin to being royal. I think that merits it a 1. Also that Joseph (not Mary) is linked to David, which means that he could be king, and is necessary for Jesus' kingship, also would merit another notch there. That he is whisked away to Egypt probably merits #8 as well. And for #11 - what do you think the Temptation on the Mount was? I think a case can be made for 13, and 17. The "royal" procession through Jerusalem is a sign of him being a king. And if you recall, Jesus was already dead when the spear was thrust into his side. I think the surprise would merit a mysterious death. However, I would take off #20 since he didn't have any children.

My scole for the combined gospels: 16. But honestly, we should separate it, and focus on Mark and Matthew, or Mark and Luke, but not Matthew and Luke combined (since they're two different tales).

GakuseiDon

Yes, good point.

"Akin to being royal" - that's the question. Does anyone know whether Raglan himself expressed the categories that broadly?

Similarly, on this and the other points, does anyone know how strictly Raglan defined the category?

RidingtheScree

From general view of christianity...

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
1. beloved by the Lord, mated with the Lord, thus royal

2. His father is a king and
1. His father is the king

3. often a near relative of the mother, but
1. He has no human father, so yes, really- he has no biparental blood

4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
1. I'd say so

5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
1. Yes he is

6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
1. King Hedious or something?

7. He is spirited away, and
1. Yes he is raised quietly and egypt later...

8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
1. He was raised by the Lord in the temples, rather than by his carpenter father in his workshop

9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
1. True. Some Gnostic texts do, however.

10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.
1. yes to the kingdom of God

11. After a victory over the king and or giant, dragon, or wild beast
1. THE BEAST, the devil

12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
1. He goes to be baptised by John, marries the holy spirit

13. becomes king
1. Yes, he becomes the KING of MEN on earth

14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
1. Yes he went into the desert for a time.

15. Prescribes laws but
1. Yes he makes alot of laws in his sermons

16. later loses favor with the gods and or his people and
1. Yes, the Romans kill him

17. Is driven from from the throne and the city after which
1. Yes he is driven from Jerusulum to the hill where he is crucified, in a long retreat of pain

18. He meets with a mysterious death
1. Yes he did, with Longurius and the speer, the holy grail, pontius pilate, identity of crowd, mary weeping, others dying, him not dying...

19. often at the top of a hill.
1.

20. his children, if any, do not succeed him.
1. no one replaces Jesus in his role

21. his body is not buried, but nevertheless
1.

22. he has one or more holy sepulchres.
1.

22 out of 22

your looking at this way to specifically, any good Hero Myth can be manipulated widely and still be applicable to being a Hero Myth. Star wars... Gilgamesh...

GakuseiDon

Yes, that's true enough. Though I wonder how tightly Raglan himself defined the categories. If they can be defined so loosely, a score of 22 is possible.

RidingtheScree

I've never read of a mythtologist (I made that up) who is so strict!

sounds like a boring job, searching for the perfect myth. It just represents the appeals of the average stupid human. Many people aren't as attracted to such myths as the average person. I find physical popular people to be an antithesis to myself= the never-surrendering, analytic, man-against-the-world is MY hero myth. Not the healthy attractive male who looks more like a female, can chop up monsters and intellectuals (like the Devil, wizards, plotting sickly men) and who girls and the poor people fall for, and who authority has to kill for disruption and idiotcy, and who yet suffer for this correct action!

youngalexander

GDon, I spotted this earlier, but the dog's walk and the SuperBowl got in the way. Was going to reply to each point, but I see that RidingtheScree has got in before me, if perhaps with the odd touch of gleeful humor. Thus I shall confine myself to a few comments.

I presume that you have been reading Jesus the Copycat Savior? Raglan and Dundes were not frivolous in their analysis and were aware of the problems associated with such a scheme. Nevertheless, we must allow a certain freedom for interpreting the traits unless we reduce it to a series of samples of one. I think that your count was a trifle restrictive, especially re egypt, the beast and poor young Mary.

I cannot see why theists are getting so worked up about it. As I have endeavoured to indicate in my latest post there, unless a person is a raving inerrantist there is nothing in the scheme which may not conform to an historical Jesus. On the contrary, I should think that it assists in forming an overall understanding of gospel structure. That is, it forms just one more part of the Jesus puzzle.

Chris Weimer

Agreed, and this goes for more than just Jesus also. For all we know, Oedipus may have been a real king of Thebes. :huh: But more importantly, it tells us what the gospellers thought, why they thought it, and what their sources were thinking. That is the ultimate in the quest for the historical Jesus. Who cares if Jesus really existed or not. That's not as near as important as the implications of the beliefs of the earliest Christians.

GakuseiDon

I was wondering whether Raglan himself gave such leeway, or maybe guidelines? E.g "a king" means "a leader", or "royal" means "specially selected".

But that is my question - is it restrictive according to Raglan?

I don't really see any impacts of historicity here either, but it would be good to give a definitive score for Christ -- either 13, 19 or 22 -- as determined by the guidelines laid down by Raglan himself.

youngalexander

Well, truth to tell, all I know is from IQotH which is a cut-down version of the original. Clearly there were scholarly papers, we could look 'em up. No doubt he does give such criteria, but I know them not. Alas!

Unfortunately I have been thinking. The accusation, gently implied here, (somewhat more robustly proffered on the other thread), is that the degree of arbitrariness (admitted), renders the parallels invalid.

As a lifelong skeptic, I am familiar with a particularly prevalent fallacy of logical thort that I think of as "Empire Stateism". This arises from the Martin Gardiner's work "Fads & Fallacies", that I read many moons ago. He discussed Pyramidolgy, the nonsense concerning the supposed correspondance between various numerical factors re the 'Great Pyramid' and anything else that you care to mention. He countered this with a similar example using the Empire State building. One encounters examples of this tosh in various forms from time to time, the 'Bible Code' of a few yrs ago is a contemporary example.

Relevance? I am working my way thru Licona's review of "The God Who Wasn't There". He presents as part of the review a number of 'Comparative Patterns' [my term] re JFK/Jesus, Rome/U.S. and various related matters. I rejected these parallels easily enough, but it occurred to me that there are many others who would accept them.

Wherin lies the difference? That is what you ask re Raglan! Why do I accept a broader definition re Raglan and a narrower one for Licona? How subjective is this? I want to banish subjectivity entirely. Fat chance.

It seems to me (not reading Greek, being a physicist and somewhat mathematicaly inclined) that there aught to be a quantitative approach to this question. We are, afterall, speaking of pattern recognition. If we Google 'Pattern Matching' we come up with some terrific stuff re 'character sequence' & 'syntax analysis' and so forth. That is surely the most exact limit of the pattern. Yet, after some reflection we can see that it will not do.

Matching 'royal virgin' may well result in 'Princess Di', while a more accurate match might be 'jelly' or 'Princess Mary'. Clearly what we really want is a match at the 'concept' level.

As it happens, I have been thinking about this (in a vague sort of way) for some time. In order to run the 'Pattern Matching' scam re Pyramidology, Bible Code, ANE Hero Pattern, Licona bunk; one requires the following three ingredients.

Source Database: lotsa data, as category diverse as possible.
Transference Connections: apparently category & data specific.
Target Database: lotsa data, as category diverse as possible.

I would maintain that P, BC & L bunk fit this system very well. I think that ANE HP is far more restricted on Source & Target DB and diverse upon connections.