***QUOTE***
Q: You find parallels between Mark's empty tomb narrative and Orphic mystery narratives, and between Luke's Emmaus narrative and the epiphany of Romulus, but despite the parallels, aren't there still a lot of differences?
A: Of course. But adapted myths acquire meaning precisely because of what is left out and what is kept in, as well as by what is changed. In other words, Mark deliberately left out of his account everything in the Orphic narrative that he rejected, and kept in everything that still had direct parallels with the gospel message. And then he changed details specifically to convey how his message was different from the Orphics (pp. 161-63). The same goes for Luke's transvaluation of the Romulus narrative (pp. 180-82) and so on (like possible parallels to the Osiris myth: p. 159). That is the whole point of including such parallels: certain readers would immediately get the parallel (or be taught it in secret initiations) and then they would understand what it is that Mark is really saying. Mythic elements are in that respect just like words: the words are the same and carry the same meaning, but when you select and rearrange them, you say something different. Readers or initiates would see the elements, the symbols, as words with distinct cultural meanings, and would see their careful selection and rearrangement as what was being said with those symbols. For more on this, see the chapter by Evan Fales, "Taming the Tehom" (pp. 307-48).
http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/SpiritualFAQ.html
***END-QUOTE***
Another example of Carrier’s circular scholarship. Of course, if you already knew that x was literarily dependent on y, then, and only then, could you claim that x “deliberately left out of his account everything in the y-narrative that he rejected, and kept in everything that still had direct parallels with the x-message.”
Unfortunately for Carrier’s argument, what is missing is evidence for direct parallels in the first place.
He appeals to deliberate omissions to harmonize his theory with the actual state of the record. But absent independent evidence that x is, in fact, literarily dependent on y, his harmonization is a classic case of backward reasoning.
If he already knew that x and y were truly parallel, in some genealogical relationship, then he might be able to account for the disanalogies by appeal to selective editing—but if the only evidence he as to work with are x and y as they stand, and if he must appeal to selective editing to harmonize his theory with the actual state of the evidence, then the evidence itself does not support his theory. Rather, his theory is trimming the evidence to agree with his preconceived hypothesis.
More desperate still is his rearguard appeal to esoteric teaching, without which even the original audience would be unable to discern the alleged parallels.
This is a backdoor admission that alleged parallels are absent from the canonical text itself.
BOO YEAH!!!
ReplyDeleteThat moron Carrier has had his mouth shut!
He's wrong, you're right, and that's the impossibility of the contrary, my friend!
How's dem apples liberal scum?
I think Carrier should just shut his big yapper.
ReplyDelete"The fool has said there is no God!"
Can't argue with the Book...
Its like he wants to get on the football field with the real players, and then gets beat up because he's weak.
You loose, Carrier!
The real difficulty with Carrier and other advocates of a 'mythic' Jesus is that he seems to be largely living in the early part of the last century, when it comes to arguments over the existence of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteEven the majority of atheist historians, such Robin Lane Fox, believe that there was such a person as Jesus Christ.
In other words, anyone making the assertion that Jesus is a myth has a serious credibility problem almost at once (see Lord Hailsham: 'The Door Wherein I Went'). As far as I am concerned, Carrier has yet to bridge this gap.
Typically scholarly response from the atheists.
ReplyDeleteTalking snakes HAW HAW talking donkeys ah ha ha floating axehead haw *snort* *snort* *guffaw* this doesn't fit into a naturalistic worldview HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW therefore it's not true *flecks of spit fly out of mouth onto beard, cheeks flushed with pleasure* HAW HAW he he
Those atheists are so retarded.
ReplyDeleteIts like they are sitting on Grandpa's lap, and then b-slapping him, and all the while they couldn't do that unless they were on his lap!
Its like they're arguing the oxygen doesn't exist, while using oxygen to breath and scream!
that's the impossibility of the contrary, my friend!!!
Atheists = morons.
The real difficulty with Carrier and other advocates of a 'mythic' Jesus is that he seems to be largely living in the early part of the last century, when it comes to arguments over the existence of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThis is the primary response I typically see in discussion boards regarding the belief that Jesus is myth. Nothing but big fat fallacies. The arguments are old and rejected by a lot of people today. Must be that they are wrong. Carrier has a serious credibility problem for advocating such a view.
I express the argument about Jesus as myth to Christians that are friends of mine. One of them is well read and started doing some research to offer a response. He says to me "That view is so ridiculous that I can't find any good sources for responses." He ended up contacting a friend that is a professor of apologetics. I still haven't heard if he's managed to find anything. If you guys would stop with the ridicule and start with the substance, then people like my friend wouldn't have such a hard time.
Jon Curry said...
ReplyDelete"If you guys would stop with the ridicule and start with the substance, then people like my friend wouldn't have such a hard time."
************************
"Substance"? Jason and I, to name just two of us, have posted reams of substantive material. Evan—to name another—links to a lot of substantive material.
You, on the other hand, begin with the abstract, fact-free formalism of Bayesian probability theory, and assign prior probabilities out of thin air. Well, not quite out of thin air. Rather, out of the prejudicial air of atheism.
You might try working on the substantive angle yourself for a change.
"Substance"? Jason and I, to name just two of us, have posted reams of substantive material. Evan—to name another—links to a lot of substantive material.
ReplyDeleteMy point is not that you and Jason have posted zero substance on any subject. My point is that critics of the Jesus as myth theory typically respond with very little substance in refutation of the Jesus as myth argument. Case in point is Hiraeth's post. His post is typical of what I see. If you deny my claim, then argue against it.
I haven't seen much substance in response to Jesus as myth from you or Jason because the argument for Jesus as myth really hasn't been made here by anyone that I've read. I haven't made it. I'd be surprised if you could even articulate it.
You, on the other hand, begin with the abstract, fact-free formalism of Bayesian probability theory, and assign prior probabilities out of thin air. Well, not quite out of thin air. Rather, out of the prejudicial air of atheism.
So now you will try pouring fallacy on top of fallacy in hopes that the original fallacy isn't noticed. You would rather talk about whether or not I've provided substance than respond to my actual claim. If you will concede that my original claim is right I will proceed to respond to your claim that I don't provide substance. Until then I will ignore your red herring.
There's a challenge for you Steve. Tell us the argument for Jesus as myth. Do it in the strongest possible terms you can. Can you do it? Do you know it? Or like Hiraeth have you been relying on the ridicule response for so long that you haven't even bothered to understand the view?
ReplyDeleteJon Curry said...
ReplyDelete"If you deny my claim, then argue against it."
Since your claim doesn't amount to an argument, there's nothing to argue against.
"Tell us the argument for Jesus as myth. Do it in the strongest possible terms you can."
Nice try, but the onus is hardly on me to argue both sides of the case. Rather, the onus is on the opponent to mount his own argument.
Jon, old man.
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest you check the book I actually mentioned ('The Door Wherein I Went' by the late Quintin Hailsham, former Lord Chancellor? Or 'Reinventing Jesus?' (recently published)
Further, may I suggest that you try reading beyond the first paragraph in any response?
Since your claim doesn't amount to an argument, there's nothing to argue against.
ReplyDeleteFine then. If you're going to disagree with me, at least assert something that contradicts what I said. Your assertion that both you and Jason have provided substance on other subjects is something I don't deny and is irrelevant to what I said.
Nice try, but the onus is hardly on me to argue both sides of the case. Rather, the onus is on the opponent to mount his own argument.
I'm not asking you to argue for it. I'm simply asking you to tell us what the argument is. I find that many people who ridicule this position have no concept of what the position actually entails. I think you would be one of those people.
To Hiraeth
May I suggest you check the book I actually mentioned ('The Door Wherein I Went' by the late Quintin Hailsham, former Lord Chancellor? Or 'Reinventing Jesus?' (recently published)
Before doing so I guess I'd like to be sure that these books really do demonstrate that anyone claiming Jesus was myth must have a serious credibility problem. I wouldn't want to waste my money and time on books that really don't achieve what you claim they achieve. For you to know how devastating these books you reference are I suppose you would need to be quite familiar with the arguments relating to Jesus as myth. Does this mean you've read Doherty, Price, and Wells? Can you summarize the argument? Or is all your confident talk suggesting Jesus' mythers are fools really based upon total ignorance?
Jon, I have not read Doherty, Price, and Wells. I don't know whether these books are worth spending my time reading. I am a busy man. I will not pretend to have read them, as I at least try to be honest.
ReplyDeleteHailsham's book is his first attempt at memoir, in it he addressed the argument, then popular among Marxists, that Jesus was 'a solar myth.' 'Reinventing Jesus' is more recent and a weightier treatment. Hailsham should be available at a good library in the 'biography' section.
Finally, I note that Carrier's position on 'Jesus as Myth' is not settled, given the item below on his treatment of the empty tomb. Accordingly, I correct my rubbishing of Carrier for believing it, as it is not clear he does.
Now, Jon, if I am ignorant, would you mind enlightening me? Since you seem to believe the argument, make it.
Jon Curry said...
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking you to argue for it. I'm simply asking you to tell us what the argument is. I find that many people who ridicule this position have no concept of what the position actually entails. I think you would be one of those people.
*********************
There is no uniform position to critique because the particulars vary with the crackpot du jour. But there's a fair amount of online material critiquing various representatives of this somewhat amorophous position. It was even too rich for Robert Price.
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=34
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=37
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_murdock.htm
Steve, the ultimate dodge-master, does it again!
ReplyDeleteBOO YEAH! (as my friend the Discomfiter would say)
I know the Discomfiter.
ReplyDeleteIf I may be permitted to get down to brass tacks and cite Hailsham's argument, which I have since brought to mind.
ReplyDeleteThe Epistles of Paul are dated to around AD64 by the vast majority of scholars (although some of them, such as the pastorals, are disputed). Jesus died around AD33.
In his Epistles, Paul refers to Jesus as a real person who lived in the recent past.
Writing in the latter part of the 1970s, Quintin Hailsham made the fairly reasonable point that to say Jesus was a myth and that Paul was mistaken would be similar to saying that Hailsham's own father, the first Lord Hailsham, had not existed (he had died about thirty years prior to the writing of that book, and was about as well attested as Jesus).
Now, Jon, would you mind awfully telling me of another case where a wholly mythic person venerated by a religion was said to have lived less than fifty years prior to the creation of the myth and done things that were genenerally seen.
Again, I note that the idea of Jesus as a myth has been rubbished by such authorities as Robin Lane Fox and Michael Grant. These are not 'most people', rather, they are experts. Experts committed to humanism, but experts none the less. If Jesus were a myth, these persons might be reasonably expected to be more than willing to show it. Indeed, the fact that the Jesus myth has failed to break into the academic mainstream should alert us that all is not well. The modern univesity is not a theocracy, indeed the majority of University theology and history departments are full of those devoted to the idea of debunking and/or 'demythologising' Christianity and the official version of Christian history and origins.
Instead of which, the persons we do get doing this are, how shall I put it, Working outside their spheres of expertise?
Thank you for your honesty Hiraeth. If you were to study the arguments you may be surprised to learn how substantive they are. As a Christian I dismissed them without studying them, buying in to the whole "even critical scholars reject this position" line. I continued with that mentality as I rejected Christianity. But then when I actually took a look at it I realized that there is a lot of merit to it and it is worth studying.
ReplyDeleteThough I haven't studied the argument in depth. I would point out that I'm not totally committed to it, but I am certainly willing to make the argument as a devil's advocate. I would also confess that right now I do believe the mythicists are correct, but again, I'm not dogmatic about that.
I have only a few free minutes at the moment, so I will quickly respond to this statement of yours.
In his Epistles, Paul refers to Jesus as a real person who lived in the recent past.
He doesn't. Paul never places Jesus at a definable moment in time nor does he ever place him at a definable location on earth in his works that are regarded as genuine by critical scholars. It represents a very curious silence.
"Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." -- 1 Cor. 15:6.
ReplyDeleteOr, as Curry would read it:
"Than he appeared at some undefined place to more than five hundred brothers at some undefined time, most of whom are alive, though some have fallen asleep in some undefined sense."
Is that the best you can do? Somewhere post ascension Christ made an "appearance". Is that a physical or non-physical Christ? In all of Paul's letters we have nothing about a Jesus raised in Nazareth, healing blind men and raising the dead in Jerusalem, being tried before the local authorities (only the "powers and principalities"), suffering in Gethsemene, crucified at Golgotha. Is it just a happinstance that Paul never places Jesus on earth specifically?
ReplyDeleteJon,
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case then why the 180 degree turn around in Paul's beliefs/life. Or is his Damascus experience a myth as well? Seems to have been the pivotal point in the formation of his "Christ"ian beliefs.
Like most skeptics I don't believe that what Acts records is reliable history. By the time Acts is written the belief that Jesus was a guy with an earthly history and physical attributes had grown and become the dominant view. Paul records nothing like a Damascus rode experience, so I would have to be skeptical that something like that actually occurred. However it is entirely possible that Paul did have some sort of experience which he took to be of Christ that changed his way of thinking. I believe he operated in a world where he thought God communicated to him through revelation and perhaps one of his revelatory experiences led him to the change that resulted. It's possible and not at all out of the ordinary for people who think in this way, whether they're seeing visions of Mary or some other pagan deity.
ReplyDelete