Richard Carrier - The Hero Savior Analogy

[Mudhammam]

You mean...some people made some shit up...?  

You... think... that's our area of... dispute...?  

For what reason do we come up with any religious belief?  A real or perceived need.  What are we talking about here, though?

Right.  And the parallels to the rise of Christianity typically center around historical figures.  No need to treat the Christians by a special standard, as, er, Christians do.

Is there any relevance to who created it, in our discussion of a historical jesus, or are you looking for something else to quibble about?  

Well, yeah, when, you know, that's precisely what everything pertaining to the historical record suggests, and then some group comes along claiming to have special knowledge about how this particular text should be read, but provide no probable or reasonable justification for doing so.... hmm.  Am I talking about Christians or mythicists here?  Frankly, it would seem like both.

You're asking the equivalent of "who came up with the boy-meets-girl literary format".  It doesn't matter, it existed by the time people believed in a christ.

Nice red herring.

You're still moving forward under the assumption that the people who advanced that narrative came up with it.  They didn't.  

No, actually, I said it didn't matter.  You're left with the same fundamental unresolved issues whether "Mark" or "Paul" created the narrative or received it from someone else (though they claim to have been in some way connected with the people who knew Jesus)

They advanced it because they believed it.  The original intent of the story would be something that only the original author could answer...and we don't know who that guy was, or collection of guys, or even what that story -was-...so....?

Right.  So, following the evidence, given that they all presume to have met people who knew Jesus and details of his biography, including his crucifixion, and the time of composition is relatively early, as in a couple of decades rather than a couple of centuries, I see no reason to grant the hypothesis that the figure of Jesus existed in myth at any point before he became, in your view, "Euheremized."

 I;m sure you'll bable on about reading comprehension vaguely when confronted with you own words...just as you did above.  

Yet... you don't seem to engage with my own words, or reproduce them when your caught making shit up, alleging I said it, when nothing in my posts which you could produce says I did.  Is this a habit of yours?

Everything I say, what have I said?  WTF is wrong with you, lol?  

You're kind of boring me at this point.  Same unsupported assertions every time.

What we -have- are myths of a christ, some people believe they are legends of a "jesus".  The existence of myth and legend do not depend upon conspiracy....nor do they depend upon historicity.  The mythicist position is that a mythical religious figure was historicized as legend -as is so often the case- (it's so common there's a term for it - which you've already been made aware of).  If you want to discuss the mythicist position..discuss that.  Not some conspiracy shit of your own devising.  Thx.

I've read some of the mythicist literature, but thanks for the summary.  Unfortunately, the two serious scholars who take your view (Price and Carrier) are unconvincing, and quite frankly, write bunk, to say nothing of style.  I'm sorry to see your attempt to follow that line, but without the knowledge or even an argument.

See above.  No one needed to "conspire" to create a hercules, nor did anyone need to "conspire" to create a jesus.  

Jesus, man.  How ignorant are you about the development of Greek myth and the differences between the history of that people, versus those relevant and influencing factors which pervaded Jewish culture, particularly in the first-century; and the appearance of a spontaneous and relatively quick rise of the strain that became recognized as distinctly Christian thought?  How is anyone supposed to take you seriously...? Your posts are downright painful.

We don't know how many (or the contents) of the stories they chose from except in those cases where they flatly declared something a heresy.  The development of canon, as far as we can tell, took centuries (knocking the whole conspiracy song and dance out of the water...those would be particularly long-lived co-conspirators....don;t you think?).  If you want a specific example you'll have to decide which part of the canon, specifically, you would like to consider.  

What's your point here again?

This it's why it's useful to ask before you start slinging mud, numbskull.  My position is that people historicized characters in a collection of myths as legends, ex post facto (as they assumed, anyway)...for a variety of reasons...not the least of which...because they really believed it.  Further, that this myth turned percieved legend..which is all we have and all we have evidence for, is a sufficent explanation for both the narrative and subsequent belief in it;s contents.  That no "historical jesus" is in evidence, and is an unnecessary and extraneous assumption.   This is, conveniently, the mythicist position.  Now that you know what it is, or at least should know what it is, you can finally begin discussing it.

Or not, you can keep crowing about conspiracies like a loon and calling me names, if you like.

Again, we know your position.  "Sufficient explanation" means many different things to different people I suppose, as it does to Christians, or mythicists, or scientifically-minded historians.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right.  And the parallels to the rise of Christianity typically center around historical figures.  No need to treat the Christians by a special standard, as, er, Christians do.

What parallels, to what?  Be specific.  There's no need for a historical zeus or odin to explain the rise of greek or norse paganism...so what special standard?  

No, actually, I said it didn't matter.  You're left with the same fundamental unresolved issues whether "Mark" or "Paul" created the narrative or received it from someone else (though they claim to have been in some way connected with the people who knew Jesus)

Why would -that- matter?  Pro-tip, it wouldn't.  We don't know who came up with the narratives.  Knowing who came up with them, however, wouldn't make them any more or less historical.  

Right.  So, following the evidence, given that they all presume to have met people who knew Jesus and details of his biography, including his crucifixion, and the time of composition is relatively early, as in a couple of decades rather than a couple of centuries, I see no reason to grant the hypothesis that the figure of Jesus existed in myth at any point before he became, in your view, "Euheremized."

Again, the canon took centuries, not decades.  Many stories were written and told about jesus, not all agree on the details, hence the classification as heretical accounts by the eventual victors in the christian game...and their exclusion from canon.  That the jesus narrative existed before the final canon was codified isn't something that you have to grant, it doesn't require your permission.  It's a fact.  

I've read some of the mythicist literature, but thanks for the summary.  Unfortunately, the two serious scholars who take your view (Price and Carrier) are unconvincing, and quite frankly, write bunk, to say nothing of style.  I'm sorry to see your attempt to follow that line, but without the knowledge or even an argument.

I doubt you've read any of it, because you all keep babbling about shit that isn't in their work - followed by round dismissals of the authors rather than the positions.  The same is happening here, in thread.  Point in fact - you see this summary, and have nothing to say about it.  Just more to say about carrier, price, and myself.  

Jesus, man.  How ignorant are you about the development of Greek myth and the differences between the history of that people, versus those relevant and influencing factors which pervaded Jewish culture, particularly in the first-century; and the appearance of a spontaneous and relatively quick rise of the strain that became recognized as distinctly Christian thought?  How is anyone supposed to take you seriously...?  Your posts are downright painful.

More of the above.  Please, elaborate.  

What's your point here again?

Just trying to inject some substance into the conversation, and explain to you why the constant bullshitting about conspiracies makes absolutely no sense in the mythicist framework, even though you clearly think that's the mythicist position.  The co-conspiritors would have to have lived for hundreds of years.

Again, we know your position.  "Sufficient explanation" means many different things to different people I suppose, as it does to Christians, or mythicists, or scientifically-minded historians.

-yeah, now you know the mythicist position...and just as we saw above..when you have to confront the mythicist position rather than some straw of your own devising you have absolutely nothing to say.

I snipped out the bits where you bitch and moan about red herrings of your own introduction and call me a liar...because what's the point, right, lol? None of that is going to help us figure out whether or not there was a historical jesus.

[GUBU]

But with most it doesn't matter.  Only with religious figures do modern followers insist that everyone follow the supposed dictates of these dusty old figures.  That forces the question of whether or not there ever was a jesus, a moses, a mohammed, a zoroaster, a zeus.  It doesn't really matter if Imhotep built the Step Pyramid.  It still exists whoever built it.

I agree, but unlike the religious who arbitrarily hold their sacred texts and figures to some bizarre standard, the historical questions surrounding ordinary aspects of their biographies should not be treated differently than when examining secular figures whose lives are shrouded in controversy, mystery, or by the pious exultation of a sect or party.

True. The establishment of Yeshua's existence should be held to the same standard of evidence we have for Ashoka or Caesar or Huayna Capac.

[Mudhammam]

True. The establishment of Yeshua's existence should be held to the same standard of evidence we have for Ashoka or Caesar or Huayna Capac.

Agreed, as well as bearing in mind that a Jewish prophet and a king or emperor are likely to differ in the sheer volume of records or artifacts they inspire.

[Mudhammam]

What parallels, to what?  Be specific.  There's no need for a historical zeus or odin to explain the rise of greek or norse paganism...so what special standard?  

I.e. cult leaders like Proteus Peregrinus or Alexander of Abonoteichus or Apollonius of Tyana; or Joseph Smith or any other countless example that has breathed between now and the last 2,500 years. I have no idea how you think that any of these characters, including Christ, resemble, in their appearance in the historical record, the births of the gods and heroes in pagan mythology. Your references to the latter are just bizarre.

Why would -that- matter?  Pro-tip, it wouldn't.  We don't know who came up with the narratives.  Knowing who came up with them, however, wouldn't make them any more or less historical.  

Um, kind of, yeah... it would... if your claim is that the origin of the narrative's central figures were ultimately born out of the feverish imaginations of some individuals. To know who came up with the narrative and why is crucial to your hypothesis when the simplest explanation need only confer to those countless other examples I previously cited, in which more often than not a "divine" is typically but a charismatic sociopath in charge of a frenzied, uneducated herd... which, apparently, is precisely what the historical record of Christianity's emergence reflects.

Again, the canon took centuries, not decades.  Many stories were written and told about jesus, not all agree on the details, hence the classification as heretical accounts by the eventual victors in the christian game...and their exclusion from canon.  That the jesus narrative existed before the final canon was codified isn't something that you have to grant, it doesn't require your permission.  It's a fact.  

Whose talking about the final canon? We're talking about the earliest documents that have been preserved from the first fifteen to seventy-five years following Christ's supposed death. If there were more writings that were lost, and there undoubtedly were, you think that helps establish the non-historicity of Christ? That's some amazingly topsy-turvy logic you've got there under your belt.

I doubt you've read any of it, because you all keep babbling about shit that isn't in their work - followed by round dismissals of the authors rather than the positions.  The same is happening here, in thread.  Point in fact - you see this summary, and have nothing to say about it.  Just more to say about carrier, price, and myself.  

In other words, I've responded to the arguments you've produced. Admittedly, this is rather difficult, seeing as how (let's be honest) you haven't yet given one.

More of the above.  Please, elaborate.  

There's virtually no similarity behind the tradition of Heracles and his presence in Greek culture and that of Jesus. But you either knew that, and acted disingenuously, or you're even less well-read on the relevant literature that relates to mythicism than you pretend.

[The Grand Nudger]

I.e. cult leaders like Proteus Peregrinus or Alexander of Abonoteichus or Apollonius of Tyana; or Joseph Smith or any other countless example that has breathed between now and the last 2,500 years.  I have no idea how you think that any of these characters, including Christ, resemble, in their appearance in the historical record, the births of the gods and heroes in pagan mythology.  Your references to the latter are just bizarre.

What references.....?  See, you just keep doing this.  

Um, kind of, yeah... it would... if your claim is that the origin of the narrative's central figures were ultimately born out of the feverish imaginations of some individuals.  To know who came up with the narrative and why is crucial to your hypothesis when the simplest explanation need only confer to those countless other examples I previously cited, in which more often than not a "divine" is typically but a charismatic sociopath in charge of a frenzied, uneducated herd... which, apparently, is precisely what the historical record of Christianity's emergence reflects.

Well, since that's not my claim, it remains irrelevant, then, eh?  

Whose talking about the final canon? We're talking about the earliest documents that have been preserved from the first fifteen to seventy-five years following Christ's supposed death.  If there were more writings that were lost, and there undoubtedly were, you think that helps establish the non-historicity of Christ?  That's some amazingly topsy-turvy logic you've got there under your belt.

You have some other jesus in mind, than the jesus of canon?  Where then do we find -this- jesus, since the jesus of canon appears nowhere but the canon?  

In other words, I've responded to the arguments you've produced.  Admittedly, this is rather difficult, seeing as how (let's be honest) you haven't yet given one.

..................did you think that through before you said it?  

There's virtually no similarity behind the tradition of Heracles and his presence in Greek culture and that of Jesus.  But you either knew that, and acted disingenuously, or you're even less well-read on the relevant literature that relates to mythicism than you pretend.

Who's discussing the similarities behind the traditions of heracles and jesus?  

...now think again about that bit above. You've been responding to arguments -you've- offered. Which is also what you do with regards to the mythicist position. You seem to consider this a badge of pride, lol.

[GUBU]

True. The establishment of Yeshua's existence should be held to the same standard of evidence we have for Ashoka or Caesar or Huayna Capac.

Agreed, as well as bearing in mind that a Jewish prophet and a king or emperor are likely to differ in the sheer volume of records or artifacts they inspire.

Thing is though, we've plenty of evidence of the first three, we've no untainted evidence of Yeshua (the two "best" sources Josephus and Tacitus show enough tampering that any honest historian won't accept them). We should be treating him as we do other characters who could've existed but are probably largely or completely fictional, like Conchobar MacNessa.

The major problem, with biblical history though is that it's not left to historians, but to theologians for the most part. The section which is left to proper experts arcaeology has stopped looking for Yeshua because of the impossibility of success.

[robvalue]

I predict that mythicism will become the predominant position, if it isn't already; especially once the proportion of Christian biblical scholars declines. I'm not too interested in the opinion of someone who thinks magical Jesus exists. They are obliged to believe HJ exists as well before they've even started.

[Minimalist]

It wasn't my claim that the "pagan roman criticisms of crucifixion are a proper application of the criteria of embarassment"

Wait now.  You are missing the whole point here.  "Embarassing to WHOM?"

I suggest you read your own gospels.

9 “Would you like me to release to you this ‘King of the Jews’?” Pilate asked. 10 (For he realized by now that the leading priests had arrested Jesus out of envy.) 11 But at this point the leading priests stirred up the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus. 12 Pilate asked them, “Then what should I do with this man you call the king of the Jews?”
13 They shouted back, “Crucify him!”
14 “Why?” Pilate demanded. “What crime has he committed?”
But the mob roared even louder, “Crucify him!”
15 So to pacify the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He ordered Jesus flogged with a lead-tipped whip, then turned him over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified.

Mark 15

22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

Matthew 27

18 Then a mighty roar rose from the crowd, and with one voice they shouted, “Kill him, and release Barabbas to us!” 19 (Barabbas was in prison for taking part in an insurrection in Jerusalem against the government, and for murder.) 20 Pilate argued with them, because he wanted to release Jesus. 21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
22 For the third time he demanded, “Why? What crime has he committed? I have found no reason to sentence him to death. So I will have him flogged, and then I will release him.”
23 But the mob shouted louder and louder, demanding that Jesus be crucified, and their voices prevailed. 24 So Pilate sentenced Jesus to die as they demanded. 25 As they had requested, he released Barabbas, the man in prison for insurrection and murder. But he turned Jesus over to them to do as they wished.

Luke we

6 When they saw him, the leading priests and Temple guards began shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

“Take him yourselves and crucify him,” Pilate said. “I find him not guilty.”

AND

15 “Away with him,” they yelled. “Away with him! Crucify him!”
“What? Crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the leading priests shouted back.
16 Then Pilate turned Jesus over to them to be crucified.

John 19

Pilate is portrayed as a vacillating wimp - somewhat different than the historical portrayals of Philo and Josephus.  But there is no embarrassment here for xtians.  They didn't do it.  The Romans didn't want to do it.

It was the fucking JEWS who insisted on it.

See where this is heading?

[RoadRunner79]

Agreed, as well as bearing in mind that a Jewish prophet and a king or emperor are likely to differ in the sheer volume of records or artifacts they inspire.

Thing is though, we've plenty of evidence of the first three, we've no untainted evidence of Yeshua (the two "best" sources Josephus and Tacitus show enough tampering that any honest historian won't accept them). We should be treating him as we do other characters who could've existed but are probably largely or completely fictional, like Conchobar MacNessa.

The major problem, with biblical history though is that it's not left to historians, but to theologians for the most part. The section which is left to proper experts arcaeology has stopped looking for Yeshua because of the impossibility of success.

This is interesting, I was just reading a response from Erhman to Carrier, last night in which the subject of Tacitus. He seems that there isn't much dispute, and that most consider it genuine. Josephus is a little different. There is some dispute, but many consider most of the passage in question, to be true... aside from the part that many consider an addition. However, in either case, it doesn't matter who or how many people ascribe to a view but why?