Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/nappy.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/nappy.html</a>

I see Bede's 'Real Scholar' has graduated from 3rd grade, straight to Christian Apologetics.

I wonder if Bede is proud of his association with this anoynmous 'real scholar' who so elegantly refutes the arguments of Christ-mythers, with his childish satires.

However, perhaps Bede's friend can explain how what he writes about Christ-mythers is relevant.

He writes in
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/raglan.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/raglan.html</a>

'In 1954, Jan de Vries devised yet another schema, the final and significantly amended version of which was published in the early 60s. De Vries' work is rather disappointing and contains several clear errors (he confuses Perseus with Peleus, for example). Once again, there are major difficulties with applying it to Christ - de Vries' hero typically fought with monsters, won princesses et cetera - and in any case some of his motif-definitions are as loose as anything in Raglan (the hero's father doesn't even have to be a god, for example - he might just as well be bestial, incestuous, etc.).'

Does Bede's 'real scholar' have evidence that anybody has ever claimed (including Jan de Vries) that Jesus fits Jan de Vries schema?

Perhaps he does, but as Bede claims his 'real scholar' refutes Christ-mythers, it would be nice to know that what he writes has some relevance to what Christ-mythers writes.

Oh, and I can't resist the following quote illustrating the depths of guilt by association which Bede and his 'real scholar' friends stoop to 'This was almost certainly the implication that Raglan himself wanted his readers to draw from his work: he was by no means a devout believer, and the present Lord Raglan is a leading member of the National Secular Society'

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

CX

Steven, please try to tone down the polemic. Thanks!

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Bede

Steven,

If you have a problem with something on Tectonics, email Holding about it. Cannot really help myself.

However, if you put together a respectful and polite email to Justin I will forward it and ask that the reply can be reproduced here.

Yours

Bede

Steven Carr

Emailing Turkel is a waste of time.

'Respectful and polite'? I shall have to do my best and hope that is good enough?

-----------------------------------
<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/raglan.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/raglan.html</a>

Has anybody (including Jan de Vries) ever claimed that Jesus fits Jan de Vries schema,and is therefore a myth?

If not, why did you present Jan de Vries schema, as though it was something sceptics put forward? What is the relevance of your writing to sceptical arguments please?

You also wrote 'This was almost certainly the implication that Raglan himself wanted his readers to draw from his work: he was by no means a devout believer, and the present Lord Raglan is a leading member of the National Secular Society.'

Does this mean that Lord Raglan was a believer, not a sceptic, and could you please explain how he could have been influenced in his views by the present Lord Raglan?

Why is the present Lord Raglan's membership of a Secular Society relevant to what one of his ancestors wrote? Is this not simply an attempt at guilt by association?

Best wishes,
Steven Carr

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

lpetrich

Actually, Lord Raglan had avoided discussing Jesus Christ in the context of his mythic-hero work, because of the obvious potential for controversy. But he did concede that one could indeed apply his mythic-hero schema to JC.

And JC fits very well.

lpetrich

Some months back, I had applied Lord Raglan's mythic-hero composite biography to several examples. And Jesus Christ was one of the high-scorers, as I had shown in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000004&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

And I agree that some of Lord Raglan's criteria do look odd. For example, he mentions that a hero's childhood goes undiscussed, when that is a rather normal occurrence in biographies in general. However, what is not normal is to discuss someone's infancy but not that person's childhood, as often happens in mythic-hero biographies.

But biographies of such heroes do sometimes have stories of great precocity during childhood; Jesus Christ's studying at the Temple at the age of 12 fits that pattern well.

Bede

Carr:
Has anybody (including Jan de Vries) ever claimed that Jesus fits Jan de Vries schema,and is therefore a myth?

Martyr:
"People have certainly claimed that Jesus fits the monomyth schemas in general, particularly that of Raglan. Since I was attempting a reasonably comprehensive survey of the various schemas, I didn't want to leave de Vries out."

Carr:
Does this mean that Lord Raglan was a believer, not a sceptic, and could you please explain how he was influenced in his views by the present Lord Raglan.?

Martyr:
"The Raglan who wrote 'The Hero' (the fourth baron) was, as far as I know, nothing other than a sceptic, though I freely admit that I have forgotten and do not have time to check the references for this (and do not consider
it of particular importance). I know of nothing that suggests that he had any religious affiliation at all. I do, however, know of his grandson's affiliations (readily verifiable) and thought it appropriate to refer to these in a passing remark, since they are indicative, though not conclusive."

More Martyr:
"I've a reasonably good idea of the arguments used by Christ-mythers and am as unimpressed by them as the vast majority of other historians who have worked on the ancient world. The Napoleon thing was actually written by a C19 Frenchman, *just as it says in the text*."

Yours

Bede

Ted Hoffman

Argumentum ad numerum. Christ-mythers are not out to impress anyone with their arguments and its no loss at all that he is not impressed.

Steven Carr

Carr:
Has anybody (including Jan de Vries) ever claimed that Jesus fits Jan de Vries schema,and is therefore a myth?

Martyr:
"People have certainly claimed that Jesus fits the monomyth schemas in general, particularly that of Raglan. Since I was attempting a reasonably comprehensive survey of the various schemas, I didn't want to leave de Vries out."

CARR (now)
It is much easier to attack arguments sceptics don't make, rather than arguments sceptics do make.

The mere fact that Bede's 'real scholar' can't name a sceptic who used de Vries' scheme is no obstacle to him claiming that he can refute sceptical usage of de Vries's scheme.

Carr:
Does this mean that Lord Raglan was a believer, not a sceptic, and could you please explain how he was influenced in his views by the present Lord Raglan.?

Martyr:
"The Raglan who wrote 'The Hero' (the fourth baron) was, as far as I know, nothing other than a sceptic, though I freely admit that I have forgotten and do not have time to check the references for this (and do not consider
it of particular importance). I know of nothing that suggests that he had any religious affiliation at all. I do, however, know of his grandson's affiliations (readily verifiable) and thought it appropriate to refer to these in a passing remark, since they are indicative, though not conclusive."

CARR (now)

To translate, Bede's real scholar attacks the sceptical claims of Lord Raglan, and doesn't even know if Lord Raglan made sceptical claims.

Of course, I don't know either if that Lord Raglan was a sceptic or not, but I am not the one saying that he can refute the sceptical claims he made.

As for the claim that the fact that the present Lord Raglan is a sceptic is 'indicative'.

Indicative of what, for goodness sakes? It is certainly not conclusive that somebody can be influenced by a descendant!

More Martyr:
"I've a reasonably good idea of the arguments used by Christ-mythers and am as unimpressed by them as the vast majority of other historians who have worked on the ancient world. The Napoleon thing was actually written by a C19 Frenchman, *just as it says in the text*."


CARR (now)
To translate, I cannot be bothered to respond to arguments Christ-mythers make, and prefer to indulge in childish parodies.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Steven Carr

And did you claim that because the story of Jesus in the Gospels fitted that scheme, this allowed you to deduce that he never existed?

After all, Bede's 'real scholar' says that is the sole argument put forward by Christ-mythers.