Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 01-24-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

I saved it in case I ever get that clever to actually understand it. Way too abstract to me.

Just curious, have you actually tried reading it and failed to understand it? What is your level of education? The main requirement seems to be an understanding of basic maths and ability to read English. Carrier explains and defines everything.

Just curious Ted : Do you agree with Carrier that "Paul refers to James the Pillar as the Brother of the Lord" ? (p.13) Is that a premise or an assumption ? Or is it even necessary to postulate the two are one for the example that follows ?

Ok, let's accept with with Carrier that there is one particular James referenced in Gal 1:19 and Gal 2:9 and apply a Baynesian estimate (logically or numerically) to the query whether "Brother of the Lord" signifies blood relationship or is a designation church "rank". But wait: Richard concludes that there is not enough "data" yet to feed into a Baynesian formula because "there is no direct evidence here as to what was normal (since there is no precedent for
calling anyone “Brother of the Lord” as a biological category, and only slim or inexact
precedent for constructing such a title as a rank within a religious order)".

Now, since you, unlike wordy, obviously grasp what Richard is doing, would you say that the example given by him illustrates how (!) 3. Bayes’ Theorem will force you to examine the likelihood of the evidence on
competing theories, rather than only one ?

Myself, having spent eight or so years, designing logical gates for computer devices, am absolutely baffled by the process of Richard's reasoning here.

Much obliged, Ted.

Jiri

Toto · 01-24-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This may be of interest
April DeConick on Jesus Project

Andrew Criddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by April DeConick

In fact, when understood within the communal memory-making process itself, the fact that a Jewish crucified criminal is mythologized as a god that the Romans should embrace as God is highly suggestive that there was such a man, and that there were a group of people who understood whatever he did to be extraordinary.

Of interest as the last desparate gasp for historicism? A myth is highly suggestive that there was a real person whose followers thought he was something special?

The claim that, since some myths are based on real historical persons, you can take any particular myth and work back to a historical person, sounds like pushing on a string.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-24-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This may be of interest
April DeConick on Jesus Project

Andrew Criddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by April DeConick

In fact, when understood within the communal memory-making process itself, the fact that a Jewish crucified criminal is mythologized as a god that the Romans should embrace as God is highly suggestive that there was such a man, and that there were a group of people who understood whatever he did to be extraordinary.

Of interest as the last desparate gasp for historicism? A myth is highly suggestive that there was a real person whose followers thought he was something special?

The claim that, since some myths are based on real historical persons, you can take any particular myth and work back to a historical person, sounds like pushing on a string.

Perhaps you will propose a paper showing this when the JP issues its next call for them in February.

Jeffrey

Toto · 01-24-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Perhaps you will propose a paper showing this when the JP issues its next call for them in February.

Jeffrey

I think that first of all someone like DeConick needs to write a paper explaining exactly how this "highly suggestive" idea can be fleshed out to some sort of probability that there was a Jesus behind the myth.

Can it be shown that that there are no myths based on non-historical characters?

I think that DeConick has only left the possibility open that there was a HJ, for those who want to continue to believe.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-24-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Perhaps you will propose a paper showing this when the JP issues its next call for them in February.

Jeffrey

I think that first of all someone like DeConick needs to write a paper explaining exactly how this "highly suggestive" idea can be fleshed out to some sort of probability that there was a Jesus behind the myth.

Perhaps, then, you'll write her or post a message on her blog to tell he so, explaining how without out her doing so, she comes off (at least to you) as "desperate"?

I she is unaware of this "need", you'd be doing her --and the JP -- a great service.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 01-24-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that DeConick has only left the possibility open that there was a HJ, for those who want to continue to believe.

Dear Toto,

It appears to me that DeConick is attempting to deal with a Jesus who was first an historical person, and then an angel, and then a god.

Quote:

Yes our gospels are theological treatises. Yes our gospels are mythological in their framing of Jesus. Yes our gospels present us with different portraits of Jesus, as do modern scholars who work on the historical Jesus. But none of this suggests even remotely to me that this means that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. In fact, when understood within the communal memory-making process itself, the fact that a Jewish crucified criminal is mythologized as a god that the Romans should embrace as God is highly suggestive that there was such a man, and that there were a group of people who understood whatever he did to be extraordinary. And so they framed and keyed his story with those they already knew, from the Jewish scriptures and from the Greco-Roman classics. And a historical person became an angel and then a god (at least that is my operating hypothesis).

Deconick appears to champion "Social Memory Theory", according to the blog:

Quote:

What Social Memory theorists have found is that all societies create their memories to support their present experiences and to help them move forward into the future as they perceive it should be. This is usually done by taking historical figures and events and reframing them into older myths or legends, and by keying them to older personages and ideas.

Best wishes,

Pete

lpetrich · 01-24-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Is she saying that only the greatest real persons get the wildest attributes given to them in mythical stories. A kind of symbolic way of showing reverence? By embell.. the stories about them.

Yes, she's suggesting something like that, that big heroes get a lot of mythology attached to them. Including embellished stories.

And in Richard Carrier's Amherst-conference report, is something VERY interesting: Justin Meggitt's "Popular Mythology in the Early Empire and the Multiplicity of Jesus Traditions," which Richard Carrier calls "outstanding":

Quote:

His published paper is going to be an absolute goldmine of resources and data on the comparative evidence of the ubiquity and rapidity of mythmaking in ancient Greco-Roman culture generally. Which makes for simple math: having showed that this was routine in the culture that produced the New Testament, we can no longer treat the New Testament as if it were somehow special or immune to the general trends and behaviors of the time. He concludes "we should expect mythmaking at [even] the earliest stage of the tradition."

Richard Carrier also noted that a lot of mainstream-scholar opinion has been tending to a hypothesis that Jesus Christ was historical but heavily mythologized, which is far from the Gospels-as-documentaries hypothesis.

And he notes Gerd Luedemann's paper on Paul's Jesus Christ. Luedemann concluded that Paul did not describe an earthly JC but a heavenly one, and that there is nothing reliable on an earthly JC in his letters. And though Luedemann still thinks that there was a historical JC, his conclusions on Paul's JC are roughly those of mythicists like Earl Doherty.

temporalillusion · 01-24-2009, 07:51 PM

I read that too, and checked Lüdemann's home page for it (http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/00con.htm). I suppose it would be too new to be able to get a hold of it, I'd be very interested. How long does it take for something like that to be available, or will it even be (I have no idea how that kind of thing works)?

Unless it's in German

Toto · 01-25-2009, 01:34 AM

I think Ludemann's paper will be published in the forthcoming book.

Toto · 01-25-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that first of all someone like DeConick needs to write a paper explaining exactly how this "highly suggestive" idea can be fleshed out to some sort of probability that there was a Jesus behind the myth.

Perhaps, then, you'll write her or post a message on her blog to tell he so, explaining how without out her doing so, she comes off (at least to you) as "desperate"?

I she is unaware of this "need", you'd be doing her --and the JP -- a great service.

Jeffrey

Why should she care what I think? I see what she wrote as clinging to a straw that there might be a historical Jesus in spite of the lack of evidence. I feel no need to take that straw away.

But I don't think that this approach has anything to offer the Jesus Project. Social Memory would seem to indicate that there might have been a historical person behind the legends, but does nothing to recover that man. Doconick must know this.

I think that this whole approach would lead the JP down a blind alley. Is that what you want?

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

01-24-2009, 07:51 PM	#108
temporalillusion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Posts: 2,001	I read that too, and checked Lüdemann's home page for it (http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/00con.htm). I suppose it would be too new to be able to get a hold of it, I'd be very interested. How long does it take for something like that to be available, or will it even be (I have no idea how that kind of thing works)? Unless it's in German

01-25-2009, 01:34 AM	#109
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think Ludemann's paper will be published in the forthcoming book.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.