For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[dejudge]

..... Carrier's proposition is that the human-Jesus in the gospels is the result of at least one gospel-writer embellishing Paul's Christ-Jesus to have been a human on earth ie. 'fleshing Him out' (which is where the term 'fleshing out' comes from).

Carrier's position is developed on the baseless assumption that letters under the name of Paul were composed before the Gospel when no such evidence exists anywhere.



The earliest manuscripts of the Gospels --Papyrus 75 are dated within the 2nd to 3rd century period as Papyrus 46 --letters under the name of Paul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

It is clear that Jesus in the letters under the name of Paul contains later embellishments not found in the earliest Gospels.

In the short gMark there is no claim that Jesus would die for the sins of all mankind and that without the resurrection there would be bo Christian faith as stated in letters under the name of Paul.

Post-resurrection embellishments in the Pauline Corpus were unknown by all NT Gospel writers including Acts and they did not use a single ten word phrase from any letter supposedly written by Paul.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

While I'm open to the possibility, you also have to bear in mind that you CAN'T copy from Paul to make a narrative of Jesus's life. Because Paul is conspicuously not telling anything about that. Whether you have access to his letters or not, you don't have anything about Jesus to copy from there.

IIRC the only thing he ever mentions as having been said by Jesus before his crucifixion, is the last supper thing. And even that he says point blank that he hasn't received from any human, but he basically hallucinated it.

As Carrier (among other) pojnts out, Paul writes 20-page letters, the whole purpose being sharing the good news about his new teacher (even if from beyond the grave.) He's excited about it. It changed his life and it could change yours. Yet after reading all 20 pages of his ramblings, you haven't learned a single physical attribute, deed, saying, or ANYTHING of his new teacher.

Which incidentally is also a relatively common symptom in paranoid schizophrenia. You know, in addition to his hallucinations, delusions of reference, multiple accounts of Cotard syndrome, etc.

So, really, it's like trying to write a biography of Bruce Lee and one of your sources is a fanboy who rants on and on about Bruce Lee, but never actually tells you ANTHING about what Bruce Lee ever said or did. Of course you're not going to quote him, because there's simply nothing useful to quote

So that doesn't say much.

On the other hand, there is a weak argument to be made that whoever wrote Paul also wasn't really having a gospel to base it on. Because Paul occasionally spends several pages doing his own weak-sauce sophistry to argue some point, where one quote from the gospel Jesus would have settled it right there. Because essentially Jesus had already ruled on that point, in the gospels. So why would Paul do his own hand-waving instead of just quoting the ultimate authority figure to settle it? Maybe because Paul doesn't seem to have ever heard that Jesus actually said that already?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That said, if we're discussing ways in which something like Xianity may (or may not) have started, here's a little tidbit about Cotard's delusion: while of course 100% are convinced they've already died in one way or another (or it wouldn't fit the definition of Cotard), and 69% vehemently deny their very existence, some 55% are convinced that now they're immortal.

Hmm... dying, and then being immune to death ever after... where have we heard that before? Oh, right, it's Jesus.

So what if instead of a historical crucified guy, we should just be looking for some poor schizophrenic who THOUGHT that he's already dead, and now he's an immortal spirit? Just an idea.

 

[dejudge]

IIRC the only thing he ever mentions as having been said by Jesus before his crucifixion, is the last supper thing. And even that he says point blank that he hasn't received from any human, but he basically hallucinated it...

You cannot show that anything in the letters under the name of Paul was due to hallucination.

It must be obvious that the writer could have invented his story about the Last Supper or added embellishments to stories of Jesus [the Lord from heaven].

All we have are fiction stories about a character called Jesus in letters under the name of Paul in manuscripts no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

NIV

More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.

But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

The dead are not raised.

The letters under Paul are 2nd-3rd century sources of fiction, falsehood, forgeries and false attribution.

 

[vridar]

It was enough to satisfy me that many people seem to be overstating the value of Carrier's "peer review".



You can quit the personal attacks and just prove me wrong instead. Will you do that?

Am I wrong?

That was not a personal attack. I was saying your method fails to take account of alternative information -- something I think you agree with. It's called confirmation bias.

I was pointing out that dogmatic claims on what amounts to accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty deserve to have a very careful and tested checking of your claims. Just a few web posts expressing your own view point and a casual search of a publisher's website don't cut it.

I have tried to zero in on what I see as problems with your approach to your views. I am sorry you see that as a personal attack. We got off to a bad start but I thought I was getting to like you for a while -- but now you are the one who is raising the question of personal attacks -- quite unjustifiably, I am sorry to say. Please let's refrain from that language and try to address the point each one of us is making.

 

[vridar]

I apologize for my bad English. Maybe it has been worse than usual this time. I will try to do better now.

It is a fact that Paul uses some sentences that refer to the life of Jesus, that is to say, to his birth, lineage, family, death and resurrection and other ocasional mentions to some behaviours than usually are understood as typical of a human being living on earth. This passages of the epistles are obviously opposite to the main mythicist thesis.

I hope you would agree with this. Then I wouldn't be obliged to repeat the corresponding quotes.

The mythicist has to ways to answer to this objection.
(a) These passages are interpolations.
(b) These passages are allegories where any terrestrial reference must be translated to a spiritual (heavenly) meaning.

It is a methodological rule of hermeneutics and interpretation that both resources are acceptable only if you are able to prove that the usual reading is not admissible. If you have not any reason to give up on the most common reading you ought to maintain it. One of the most c compelling crtiterion to abandon the usual reading is the principle of no contradiction. (You have used it at least five times in the comment that I have mentioned above).

I hope that our agreement persists till now. I suppose our disagreements begin from now.

Many of the alleged interpolations in the Pauline epistles have as unique or main argument the non-contradiction principle. This is a logical principle widely used in the field of rational thinking... but this is not applicable to religions and myths. In the mythical thought it is possible to affirm A and not A together. The believer can successively affirm that Jesus Christ is the same and different of the Father, that all the Christians are Jesus' brothers and sons of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ was in his tomb and in Hell simultaneously, etc. These contradictions are reinforced by vagueness and ambiguity that are features of the so called mythic-poetical language.
The Philippians hymn, for example. In the believer language it is possible to affirm that Jesus Christ is equal and dependent of the Father, that he was divine from the beginning of time and exalted only after his death, etc. We usually tend to search for a unitary explanation, by dissolution of the ambiguity and vagueness of this language. It is our mistake. The contradiction is the core of the religious belief. This is the persuasive use of language.
Therefore, if we want argue in favour of an interpolation or a metaphorical-allegorical interpretation of a passage we should give strong reasons to do it.
Therefore I don’t see any strong reason to accept these interpolations and allegorical interpretations that mythicists propose. I don’t see any strong reason to change the usual meaning of the words “brother of the Lord”, “seed of David”, “born of a woman”, “crucifixion”, etc., in order to transform events of a human life in allegorical interpretations of heavenly entities, as mythicism, Gnosticism, docetism or other Christians sects propose only because these “tranformers” are consistent with their particular interpretations.

An example:

In your comment #399 ap. 3 you use the non-contradiction argument to discard Romans 1: 3 as a genuine Pauline text -this is to say, an interpolation- by means of two different comparisons. This verse would be an interpolation because it don’t fit the authentic Pauline thought and because they don’t fit other texts. Remember: Romans 1: 3: “regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David”
According to you this verse would be contradictory with the true Pauline doctrine as reflected in 2 Cor.5:16: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer”.
I confess that I don’t see any contradiction between those verses. 2 Corinthians doesn’t deny that Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David, but that a good understanding of him implies realizing his divine mission and his transcendence of “his earthly life”. In addition you say that Romans 1:3 “imputes great significance to the idea that Jesus was the Son of David”. This is not evident. This verse only places the existence of Jesus Christ in a particular context of the history. The relevance of this fact transcends the carnal significance, because it is a universal one, as it is pointed in the next verse (4): “…and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord”. Paul is claiming that the earthly life of Jesus doesn’t interest him (or doesn’t matter) no more, even this life on earth really had existed. What really matters is the power of the Christ that God concedes him, the resurrection specially.
Where is the contradiction?

I stop here, because the comment is excessively growing. Maybe I have explained better my idea and you have some interest to discussing it.
Thank you.

I think you're taking up your arguments with the wrong person here. I have addressed certain arguments here but only if I think they are based on faulty assumptions or such. Your comments here cover so much wide territory it is impossible for me to address them in a reasonable time-frame available to me.

I am happy to address any specific point I have made, but I cannot take up a large overview of points that seem to be presented on various assumptions about what you seem to think I believe or argue or the methods I follow.

If you can point to a particular comment of mine that you find problematic and just address that one point or ask for clarification or point to a fallacy, I think that might be a better way to go.

(I only have a few minutes a day free for this forum for now.)



I

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You cannot show that anything in the letters under the name of Paul was due to hallucination.

Well, whether the author actually is Paul or not, the character Paul says it quite point blank, and more than one time, that his stuff doesn't come from other people but he got it directly from the already dead Jesus. Including about the last supper.

1 Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,"

Unless you believe that Paul could actually talk with the dead Jesus, and receive accurate information -- which I think you don't -- then congrats, the stuff that the character Paul received directly from the Lord is hallucinated.

Basically whether the author is actually Paul or not, the character he created is schizophrenic AF. And again, not just because of the hallucinations.

He also says he was somehow crucified with Jesus, and now he's some kind of Jesus zombie. He was shipwrecked and spent a couple of days in the deep. He fought wild beasts in Ephesus, in some way related to Jesus being real, which would be a death sentence unless he had a side-job as a bestiarius gladiator. Etc. That guy not just has Cotard syndrome, he out-Cotards most Cotard sufferers. Most only "died" once (in their own mind), but Paul seems to die once a year or so for his faith.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that the author of Paul's epistles was necessarily the same as Paul the character in the epistles. But if he made up a first person persona in the epistles (I guess some kind of early Colbert), the character he created is crazier than a sack of wild cats.

 

[David Mo]

I think you're taking up your arguments with the wrong person here. I have addressed certain arguments here but only if I think they are based on faulty assumptions or such. Your comments here cover so much wide territory it is impossible for me to address them in a reasonable time-frame available to me.

I am happy to address any specific point I have made, but I cannot take up a large overview of points that seem to be presented on various assumptions about what you seem to think I believe or argue or the methods I follow.

If you can point to a particular comment of mine that you find problematic and just address that one point or ask for clarification or point to a fallacy, I think that might be a better way to go.

Here, a problematic comment of yours:

In your comment #399 ap. 3 you use the non-contradiction argument to discard Romans 1: 3 as a genuine Pauline text -this is to say, an interpolation- by means of two different comparisons. This verse would be an interpolation because it doesn’t fit the authentic Pauline thought and because they doesn’t fit other texts. Remember: Romans 1: 3: “regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David”
According to you this verse would be contradictory with the true Pauline doctrine as reflected in 2 Cor.5:16: “Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer”.

I confess that I don’t see any contradiction between those verses. 2 Corinthians doesn’t deny that Jesus Christ was of the lineage of David, but it affirms that a good understanding of him implies realizing his divine mission and his transcendence of “his earthly life”. In addition, you say that Romans 1:3 “imputes great significance to the idea that Jesus was the Son of David”. This is not evident. This verse only places the existence of Jesus Christ in a particular context of the history. The relevance of this fact transcends the carnal significance, because it is a universal one, as it is pointed in the next verse (4): “…and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord”. Paul is claiming that the earthly life of Jesus doesn’t interest him (or doesn’t matter) no more, although this life on earth really had existed. What really matters is the power that God confers on Jesus Christ, the resurrection specially.

Where is the contradiction?

(I only have a few minutes a day free for this forum for now.)

I share your problem in addition of the translation.

 

[Brainache]

That was not a personal attack. I was saying your method fails to take account of alternative information -- something I think you agree with. It's called confirmation bias.

I was pointing out that dogmatic claims on what amounts to accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty deserve to have a very careful and tested checking of your claims. Just a few web posts expressing your own view point and a casual search of a publisher's website don't cut it.

I have tried to zero in on what I see as problems with your approach to your views. I am sorry you see that as a personal attack. We got off to a bad start but I thought I was getting to like you for a while -- but now you are the one who is raising the question of personal attacks -- quite unjustifiably, I am sorry to say. Please let's refrain from that language and try to address the point each one of us is making.

OK.

Would you care to address the issue of Carrier overstating the importance of his "peer review"?

Or the numerous instances of him erroneously claiming that his book was published by the University of Sheffield?

Or are you going to harp on about my ability to research these things?

 

[Brainache]

Well, whether the author actually is Paul or not, the character Paul says it quite point blank, and more than one time, that his stuff doesn't come from other people but he got it directly from the already dead Jesus. Including about the last supper.

1 Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,"

Unless you believe that Paul could actually talk with the dead Jesus, and receive accurate information -- which I think you don't -- then congrats, the stuff that the character Paul received directly from the Lord is hallucinated.

Basically whether the author is actually Paul or not, the character he created is schizophrenic AF. And again, not just because of the hallucinations.

He also says he was somehow crucified with Jesus, and now he's some kind of Jesus zombie. He was shipwrecked and spent a couple of days in the deep. He fought wild beasts in Ephesus, in some way related to Jesus being real, which would be a death sentence unless he had a side-job as a bestiarius gladiator. Etc. That guy not just has Cotard syndrome, he out-Cotards most Cotard sufferers. Most only "died" once (in their own mind), but Paul seems to die once a year or so for his faith.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that the author of Paul's epistles was necessarily the same as Paul the character in the epistles. But if he made up a first person persona in the epistles (I guess some kind of early Colbert), the character he created is crazier than a sack of wild cats.

Or he was just lying. It is entirely possible that he didn't believe a word of it and was actually advancing a hidden agenda...

1 Corinthians 9:20-22New International Version (NIV)

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Or he was just lying. It is entirely possible that he didn't believe a word of it and was actually advancing a hidden agenda...

Lying is entirely possible, and indeed quite supportable from the epistles.

But nevertheless we have Author Paul writing the epistles, and we have Character Paul as he appears in those epistles. I don't know if Author Paul was the same as the character, but far as I can tell, Character Paul is crazier than some people you could meet in an actual psychiatric ward.

Of course, that's all in modern terms. Back then having visions from the Lord made people call one a prophet, not a paranoid schizophrenic. And Paul makes a very good living out of it too. So there would be enough motive for Paul to fake that.

He does kinda describe himself way TOO well as fitting a textbook case of paranoid schizophrenia, though, in an age where they'd have no such knowledge. So I'm inclined to believe him

But, of course, he could be BOTH insane AND a liar. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

OK.

Would you care to address the issue of Carrier overstating the importance of his "peer review"?

Or the numerous instances of him erroneously claiming that his book was published by the University of Sheffield?

Or are you going to harp on about my ability to research these things?

I'm not entirely sure they're all that overstated. Sheffield Phoenix Press was having actual respected academics as editors, even if the university wasn't paying them for their editing work. I mean, the core of their publishing team was literally consisting of:

- J. Cheryl Exum, an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield
- David J. A. Clines, yep, he too is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield
- Keith W. Whitelam, yep, another Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield

That is, in addition to being themselves authors of respected works in the field.

Yeah, it's not the same as being published by the university itself, as none of them was doing it as part of their job at the university, but it's still by very respected professors from that university. Frankly, having any of those as an editor IS already lending one more than enough credibility. Even the editor alone means that you had one emeritus professor reading and reviewing it, before it even got to the other reviewers.

And I tend to think that if THEY recommended a reviewer or four, that's nowhere near the same as being reviewed by my pals Rick and Jerry. A professor doesn't usually recommend some unqualified cabbie as another authority on the subject matter

 

[Brainache]

I'm not entirely sure they're all that overstated. Sheffield Phoenix Press was having actual respected academics as editors, even if the university wasn't paying them for their editing work. I mean, the core of their publishing team was literally consisting of:

- J. Cheryl Exum, an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield
- David J. A. Clines, yep, he too is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield
- Keith W. Whitelam, yep, another Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield

That is, in addition to being themselves authors of respected works in the field.

Yeah, it's not the same as being published by the university itself, as none of them was doing it as part of their job at the university, but it's still by very respected professors from that university. Frankly, having any of those as an editor IS already lending one more than enough credibility. Even the editor alone means that you had one emeritus professor reading and reviewing it, before it even got to the other reviewers.

And I tend to think that if THEY recommended a reviewer or four, that's nowhere near the same as being reviewed by my pals Rick and Jerry. A professor doesn't usually recommend some unqualified cabbie as another authority on the subject matter

Thank you Hans.

Do we know that the publishers were also the editors? I imagine that info is in the book, but I don't own a copy of it.

Was it Carrier or the Publishers who chose the reviewers? I've only seen Carrier saying that the reviewers "were chosen", but I don't think I've seen him say who they were chosen by.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I only have the kindle edition, so I'm not sure. The back cover doesn't seem to be a part of the kindle file, or at least it's not shown in my amazon app, so if there was more there, I wouldn't know.

One thing I can say, though, for anyone thinking Carrier is to blame for mis-representing any relationship they might have with the university, here's what it actually says in the publisher info at the front of the book:

(Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to copy and paste from a kindle book, so a screenshot will have to do.)

Notice that it says Department Of Biblical Studies, University Of Sheffield right there. It's not some later claim by Carrier, it's what's in their copyright notice in the book. So, yeah, IMHO if they wanted people to know they're independent and not directly associated with that department, they shouldn't have written that line.

Edit: That said, I know that all three were editors for some other stuff, including the journal they publish, so they did that job too. Which of them or whether any of them did the editor job for Carrier, I don't know, though.

 

[Brainache]

Well, I only have the kindle edition, so I'm not sure. The back cover doesn't seem to be a part of the kindle file, or at least it's not shown in my amazon app, so if there was more there, I wouldn't know.

One thing I can say, though, for anyone thinking Carrier is to blame for mis-representing any relationship they might have with the university, here's what it actually says in the publisher info at the front of the book:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=540&pictureid=11088[/qimg]

(Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to copy and paste from a kindle book, so a screenshot will have to do.)

Notice that it says Department Of Biblical Studies, University Of Sheffield right there. It's not some later claim by Carrier, it's what's in their copyright notice in the book. So, yeah, IMHO if they wanted people to know they're independent and not directly associated with that department, they shouldn't have written that line.

Again thanks.

Their website claims that they are independent, but this suggests some official affiliation.

It still smells fishy to me. YMMV.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I guess we can now start a thread about whether there is a historical Carrier

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, *ahem* joke aside, here's what it says on their contact page:

Sheffield Phoenix Press
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield
45 Victoria Street
Sheffield S3 7QB
England​

I guess it could be part of the address. They do say they're based in that department. But, yeah, I can see how it would confuse everyone.

That said, it also lists the following under editorial contacts

David Clines [email protected]
Cheryl Exum [email protected]
​

So I guess they ARE doing the editor job too.

 

[dejudge]

Well, whether the author actually is Paul or not, the character Paul says it quite point blank, and more than one time, that his stuff doesn't come from other people but he got it directly from the already dead Jesus. Including about the last supper.

1 Cor 11:23: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,"

Unless you believe that Paul could actually talk with the dead Jesus, and receive accurate information -- which I think you don't -- then congrats, the stuff that the character Paul received directly from the Lord is hallucinated.

A "point blank" statement by an unknown person composed at an unknown time cannot assumed to be a fact.

You seem to have no idea that the writer under the name of Paul could have made up the stories which were claimed to have been "received from the Lord".

One does not have to hallucinate to fabricate falsehood or fiction.

Basically whether the author is actually Paul or not, the character he created is schizophrenic AF. And again, not just because of the hallucinations.

Why do you assume the character called Paul hallucinated without any historical evidence?

He also says he was somehow crucified with Jesus, and now he's some kind of Jesus zombie. He was shipwrecked and spent a couple of days in the deep. He fought wild beasts in Ephesus, in some way related to Jesus being real, which would be a death sentence unless he had a side-job as a bestiarius gladiator. Etc. That guy not just has Cotard syndrome, he out-Cotards most Cotard sufferers. Most only "died" once (in their own mind), but Paul seems to die once a year or so for his faith.

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that the author of Paul's epistles was necessarily the same as Paul the character in the epistles. But if he made up a first person persona in the epistles (I guess some kind of early Colbert), the character he created is crazier than a sack of wild cats.

I hope you understand that those supposed crazy stories of Jesus are from manuscripts dated no earlier than the late 2nd -3rd century.

Now, since you think events and accounts of Jesus in letters under the name of Paul were products of hallucination then surely the stories about Aretas, Peter, James, John and Churches in the Roman Empire could have been "received" from the same hallucinating source.

 

[IanS]

Well, I only have the kindle edition, so I'm not sure. The back cover doesn't seem to be a part of the kindle file, or at least it's not shown in my amazon app, so if there was more there, I wouldn't know.

One thing I can say, though, for anyone thinking Carrier is to blame for mis-representing any relationship they might have with the university, here's what it actually says in the publisher info at the front of the book:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=540&pictureid=11088[/qimg]

(Sorry, I couldn't figure out how to copy and paste from a kindle book, so a screenshot will have to do.)

Notice that it says Department Of Biblical Studies, University Of Sheffield right there. It's not some later claim by Carrier, it's what's in their copyright notice in the book. So, yeah, IMHO if they wanted people to know they're independent and not directly associated with that department, they shouldn't have written that line.

Edit: That said, I know that all three were editors for some other stuff, including the journal they publish, so they did that job too. Which of them or whether any of them did the editor job for Carrier, I don't know, though.

It says exactly the same in the printed paper copy. It just names the publishers as above, but does not name editors or referees (I don't know why it would name them unless they are contributing, ie actually writing certain chapters of the book ... iirc, on scientific papers (for example) the papers do not name any "editors" or "referees" (only the scientific authors are named).

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@dejudge
You'll notice I make a different between
A) the Author Paul, i.e., whoever wrote those epistles (which could have had another name, mind you)
B) the Character Paul in the epistles

The latter may or may not be the same as the former. Hell, it may or may not even be based on the former.

Sort of like the conceptual difference between Karl May the novellist, and Karl May the fictive cowboy-type guy, with a fictive Henry gun that can shoot like two dozen rounds before needing to reload, and narrating it in first person to boot. Author Karl May AFAIK never set foot in the USA, while Character Karl May was having adventures all over the wild west. And in a completely different time than the author's to boot.

To get back to the point, I don't know if the author of Paul's epistles actually was a loonie or making it up. But the character in the epistles is definitely a paranoid schizophrenic, as far as I can tell. If he's someone else's literary protagonist, well, that protagonist is definitely described as off his rocker. In fact, he's not even in the same town as his rocker any more