The historicity of Jesus and the Rank-Raglan hero-type.

[Warren Stupidity]

Carrier's last Element (48), perhaps the most revealing of them all, describes the Rank-Raglan hero-type, based on two scholars who developed it. Twenty-two features describe the properties of mythical hero types. (to see the features, click here).

According to Carrier (and Raglan), only two features do not score for Jesus. The following list shows the scores based on 15 hero-type characters:

1. Oedipus (21)
2. Moses (20)
3. Jesus (20)
4. Theseus (19)
5. Dionysus (19)
6. Romulus (18)
7. Perseus (17)
8. Hercules (17)
9. Zeus (15)
10. Bellerophon (14)
11. Jason (14)
12. Osiris (14)
13. Pelops (13)
14. Asclepius (12)
15. Joseph [i.e., the son of Jacob] (12)

As you can see, Jesus scores a high 20 on the hero scale. As an experiment, try to find any historical figure that comes close to this.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Carrier.htm

The problem of course is that everyone on this list with the exception of Jesus of Nazereth is mythical. That alone does not prove that the Christ Myth was entirely made up, but it does present a bit of a problem for the historicists, as Carrier goes on to demonstrate in his recent book: "On the Historicity of Jesus".

Wiki provides the following definitions, also used by Carrier:

Otto Rank, in 1909, developed a Hero pattern on that was very much based on Oedipus's legend, followed Freudian thought in that the pattern lingered on the Hero's relations with the parents and was limited to the first half of the life of the Hero:[4]

1.Child of distinguished parents
2.Father is a king
3.Difficulty in conception
4.Prophecy warning against birth
5.Hero surrendered to the water in a box
6.Saved by animals or lowly people
7.Suckled by female animal or humble woman
8.Hero grows up
9.Hero finds distinguished parents
10.Hero takes revenge on the father
11.Acknowledged by people
12.Achieves rank and honors

Lord Raglan, in 1936, developed a 22 point myth-ritualist Hero archetype to account for common patterns across Indo-European cultures for Hero traditions, following myth-ritualists like James Frazer and S.H. Hooke:[4]

1.Mother is a royal virgin
2.Father is a king
3.Father often a near relative to mother
4.Unusual conception
5.Hero reputed to be son of god
6.Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7.Hero spirited away as a child
8.Reared by foster parents in a far country
9.No details of childhood
10.Returns or goes to future kingdom
11.Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12.Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13.Becomes king
14.For a time he reigns uneventfully
15.He prescribes laws
16.Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17.Driven from throne and city
18.Meets with mysterious death
19.Often at the top of a hill
20.His children, if any, do not succeed him
21.His body is not buried
22.Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rank-Raglan_mythotype

[pangaia]

1. A very interesting post.

And a new 'amalgam' of ideas to me.

I did not open the links yet, but---

Just in reading the 22 points of Raglan, these seem to me to be similar to the inner, life-long journey to develop consciousness, described in different ways in different spiritual practices, but nevertheless all similar to these points and, in many ways, to each other.

Thanks for the post.

[okasha]

2. Raglan based his list of characteristics

squarely on Oedipus and Jesus, so of course theny fit. So does Richard III of England (19-20.).

Read the book, Warren. Wikipedia is not the fount of all knowledge.

[rug]

3. I wonder where Hitler ranks.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Thanks for the usual snark okasha, always good to hear from you.

[okasha]

5. You're welcome.

Your OP got what it deserved.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. so much bitterness.

Maybe you should start your own op on why you are so bitter. By the way I started a TH op for you since you were so eager to discuss TH and you never posted anything. That made me so sad. How is your new alliance going with our new poster here who thinks native americans that he allegedly grew up with were "like savages"? I keep thinking you must have missed his now self deleted missives on that subject.

[okasha]

8. You know, you're just not very good at sarcssm.

Still, you are an ongoing source of amusement.

[mr blur]

11. Congratulations, you win the Bright Shiny Mirror Award.

That's quite a collection you have now. You should really have lost a point for the spelling mistake and the humour malfunction but we're used to it now.

[okasha]

12. Alas, neither are you.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. You really should start your own ops here.

You are so knowledgeable on so many subjects, you could really improve the level of discourse here by providing your insights into the issues discussed here rather than just limiting yourself as you do.

[okasha]

15. You don't do lugubrious well, either.

[Goblinmonger]

22. Campbell's work does similar traits

and still Jesus fits in with other great mythologies of the world.

[Cartoonist]

7. Batman

1.Child of distinguished parents
2.Father is a king of business
9.No details of childhood
11.Is victor over criminals
13.Becomes king of Gotham

[rug]

9. 12 fits too.

[okasha]

10. I used this list to organize my Brit Lit survey classes

around the figure of the hero. One department member, though, got terribly upset because I showed The Lion King to illustrate it.

[rug]

13. Ooh, I bet Scar got a high ranking.

[okasha]

16. Likely he would,

since he's Mufasa's brother, and Simba and Mufasa between them make the complete pattern.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Seems weird a lit teacher

wouldn't see the Hamlet in Lion King.

[okasha]

23. Seems weird you'd think an English teacher wouldn't.

A little Hamlet, a little Richard III, a little Scottish play.

[Goblinmonger]

24. So why were they upset?

Or were they of the "it's a cartoon" variety?

There's a lot of Shakespeare in that film, but I would put Hamlet at the top of the list. I was especially pleased with their Rosencrantz and Gildenstern take.

[okasha]

26. "They?,"

Oh, you mean the pompous idiot who was scandalized? His faction had just lost the Canon Wars, poor thing, and using a Disney cartoon when I could have been making the students plough their way through Anglo-Saxon--well!

[Goblinmonger]

37. I prefer the plural for the generic pronoun.

Don't know if that is where we will land, but I did not know the gender of the person in question.

So he was that guy. Thankfully I don't have anyone in my department like that. Did have a now retired math teacher (married to an English teacher in a different district) tell me that we watered down our curriculum when we switched from Scarlet Letter to Great Gatsby as required reading for all juniors. I told her I would sit down and she could have all the time she wanted to convince me that Scarlet Letter was a better book than Gatsby. She never took me up on it.

[Jim__]

17. "... recent historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln fit all of Lord Raglan's 22 points ..."

As to the challenge:

As you can see, Jesus scores a high 20 on the hero scale. As an experiment, try to find any historical figure that comes close to this.

From the OP's wikipedia source:

Folklorist Alan Dundes has noted that Raglan did not categorically deny the historicity of the Heros he looked at, rather it was their common biographies he considered as nonhistorical. Furthermore, Dundes noted that Raglan himself had admitted that his choice of 22 incidents, as opposed to any other number of incidents, was arbitrarily chosen.[4]

Folklorist Francis Utley argued that recent historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln fit all of Lord Raglan's 22 points and that Lincoln was a mythical figure.[5] Another recent historical figure that fit the Hero pattern quite well was John F. Kennedy, furthermore, William Wallace from the medieval period did as well.[6] Classicist Thomas J. Sienkewicz did other rankings of numerous Heroes and among them that score quite high were historical persons like Muhammad (17), Tsar Nicholas II (14), Mithridates VI of Pontus (22), Buddha (15) and Jesus (18). Also fictional characters were scored as well, among those Harry Potter (8).[7]

So, it seems that at least one historical figure comes close. And we can also see that not everyone ranks Jesus as a 20.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Yes it is controversial. And the work Carrier has done has lit a flame all over Christiandom it seem

Carrier's claim is not that no historical person fits the scale.

[Jim__]

19. The challenge is from your OP. - n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Yes, I agree wiki is pretty fair on this, covers both sides.

Lincoln doesn't really seem to "fit all of Lord Raglan's 22 points", but I agree that somebody said that. Again, Carrier's argument does not hinge on a claim that being high enough on the scale proves lack of historicity. He uses it to establish a precedent probability.

[okasha]

25. Richard III,

the historical figure, not Shakespeare's character, comes in at a solid 20. Charles II would also rank high.

[goldent]

27. Don't see how Jesus gets a score of 20

I think there must be a lot of flexibility in scoring.

[Jim__]

32. Yes. Here's a single wikipedia entry that scores Jesus 14, 18, and 20.

From wikipedia:

Folklorist Francis Utley argued that recent historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln fit all of Lord Raglan's 22 points and that Lincoln was a mythical figure.[5] Another recent historical figure that fit the Hero pattern quite well was John F. Kennedy, furthermore, William Wallace from the medieval period did as well.[6] Classicist Thomas J. Sienkewicz did other rankings of numerous Heroes and among them that score quite high were historical persons like Muhammad (17), Tsar Nicholas II (14), Mithridates VI of Pontus (22), Buddha (15) and Jesus (18)]. Also fictional characters were scored as well, among those Harry Potter (8).[7]

...

People have come up with different rankings using the various Hero patterns. Historian Richard Carrier for instance created a mix of both Rank's and Raglan's list, mainly using Raglan's list and keeping most of his scores, however, and he changed a few scores and added two others: Oedipus (21), Theseus (20), Moses (20), Jesus (20 with the Gospel of Matthew and 14 with the Gospel of Mark), Dionysus (19), Romulus (18), Perseus (18), Hercules (17), Bellerophon (16), Jason(15), Zeus (15), Osiris (15), Pelops (13), Asclepius (12), Joseph (son of Jacob) (12), Alexander the Great (10 or 13) and Mithradates (10).[3]

[goldent]

41. I saw that, but I'd like to see the details of the scoring, not just the sum

I think they might be grading on a curve

[PDJane]

28. Jesus is not a 'historical' figure.

There is no evidence for his existence, and had Joseph and Mary come to Nazareth for the census, there would be.

The bible is not history. Not yours, not mine, not theirs. It is myth and legend, tied to real places.

[okasha]

29. Feel free to produce those census records any time now.

According to Luke, they went to Bethlehem, from Nazareth, not to Nazareth.

[trotsky]

30. Actually, those who believe Jesus was real are the ones who should produce those records.

You understand how this thing called "evidence" works, right?

[rug]

31. You understand how the thing called a "counterclaim" works, right?

[PDJane]

33. Bethlehem or Nazareth, those records don't exist.

The bible is not history, and never has been. It's a series of fairy tales, and the whole aim is to control people, keep them quiescent in the face of discord.

In fact, it's possible that religion creates friction and poverty, in order to control the masses and keep people believing in God.

[okasha]

34. You're contradicting yourself.

Last edited Mon Dec 29, 2014, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

You said that, had Joseph and Mary come to Nazareth [sic] for the census, there would be records of them--and presumably their infant son-in those documents. You claim that they are not listed

Now you say those documents don't exist at all..

Choose one. Your claims are mutually exclusive.

[PDJane]

36. No. The documents do not list Joseph, Mary or their infant son. In that sense,

The record is non-existent. In fact, most biblical scholars now believe that Jesus was a combination of several people; the bible is not an accurate history.

The existence of King David, in spite of the theme park outside of Jersusalem, is not proven. In fact, at the time of his supposed exisstence, Jerusalem was likely an abandoned city. Beleif is a wonderful thing, but the truth is usually something quite different from belief.

[okasha]

38. Let's keep it simple.

Please tell us where we can access these documents that do not list Jesus and his family.

[PDJane]

39. There is no record of any census before 6CE.

The census that is supposed to name Jesus and his birth did not occur. In other words, the biblical record is a story, like all stories in the bible, written well after the fact, and embellishing the record.

If you want to tell me I am not being clear or contradicting myself, go ahead. The fact is that the census wasn't there, and the story of the Holy Family travelling to Bethlehem for a census, and having to reside in a stable...........is a story.

Religion is not history, nor is it based on history. It does, however, if given as truth before the age of reason, allow people to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

[trotsky]

35. Not surprising that your post touched some sensitive nerves.

But MY hero isn't like those OTHER heroes, he's the REAL hero.

[PDJane]

40. I'll pick Howard Zinn.

[Iggo]

42. "The problem of course..."

"...is that everyone on this list with the exception of Jesus of Nazereth is mythical."

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I'm being generous.

The data doesn't prove mythicism, it provides a useful way to assign a probability to the hypothesis that this particular jesus was historical.