The Jesus Myth Part III

[Res Ipsa]

Then what also should be clear is that the Linda problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether Jesus was a historical figure.

By gums I think he got it. The problem here demonstrates that those who want to refuse to acknowledge the obvious that it's more probable Jesus is myth Moreno than he is myth plus a historical person are simply wrong. I realize you eventually admitted this, but it was absolutely fascinating that everyone danced around it.

EtA: interesting since many since refusing to acknowledge the problem kept suggesting mark gives signs Jesus was a real boy. It's as I they couldn't simply leave well enough alone. Very fascinating.

I guess I'll have to type it more slowly, Stem. No one here, including me, has claimed that it is more likely that Jesus is a myth based on a real person than that Jesus is a myth regardless of whether the myth is based on a real person or not.

I've never contended that A + B is more probable than A in this thread or in any other context. It's a trivially false statement. You're whole "you've finally admitted" routine is crystal clear evidence that you don't understand what the Linda problem actually is or when it applies. What the others and I have tried to show you is that you are trying to use the Linda problem in a situation to which it does not apply. The only person "dancing" is you -- you are dancing around the fact that you cannot explain why the Linda problem is relevant to the discussion.

[Res Ipsa]

It's more likely that Jesus is a historical figure than it is that Jesus is a historical figure and a myth. Or, something something, homunculus screaming, "But Jesus is a myth is more likely" something.

Good illustration of why the Linda problem is irrelevant to the discussion.

[honorentheos]

You said we all agreed that the gospel of Mark was "myth." But, it's clear now we don't all agree. But the issue we are discussing is not, and never has been, whether Mark is "myth." The issue we've been discussing is whether Mark is based on a real, historical person. At this point, the term "myth" is actually getting in the way of what we're discussing because we don't all agree on what constitutes a "myth." Kish describes Mark as containing "mythical tropes." I would have said that Mark's story ascribe some mythical qualities to Jesus. I don't know how Honor or anyone else would describe it. But does any story that includes a single mythologized aspect of a character make the story a "myth." I don't know, and I don't see how that categorization helps us evaluate the evidence on the subject of whether the stories of Jesus are based on an actual historical person. That's my concern with your use of "myth" in your argument.

My view on the use of myth to describe something is very context-driven so I probably haven't helped the discussion in that regard. Since college when the idea was introduced to me that "myth" need not be a term that applies to the truth value of a narrative but rather to how it functions in a culture, I've probably gotten sloppy in assuming most people use the term in a more nuanced way. If I describe the Gospel of Mark as containing an early myth about Jesus, which I would, I wouldn't view that as taking a position on the underlying reality of Jesus as a historical figure. The first is a question for anthropologists and sociologists, maybe philosophers. The latter, a question for historians. The two are separate but they communicate across the boundaries because the soft sciences tend to be that way. Overly isolating the two leads to real problems in understanding the subject matter in question, in my opinion.

[Res Ipsa]

You said we all agreed that the gospel of Mark was "myth." But, it's clear now we don't all agree. But the issue we are discussing is not, and never has been, whether Mark is "myth." The issue we've been discussing is whether Mark is based on a real, historical person. At this point, the term "myth" is actually getting in the way of what we're discussing because we don't all agree on what constitutes a "myth." Kish describes Mark as containing "mythical tropes." I would have said that Mark's story ascribe some mythical qualities to Jesus. I don't know how Honor or anyone else would describe it. But does any story that includes a single mythologized aspect of a character make the story a "myth." I don't know, and I don't see how that categorization helps us evaluate the evidence on the subject of whether the stories of Jesus are based on an actual historical person. That's my concern with your use of "myth" in your argument.

My view on the use of myth to describe something is very context-driven so I probably haven't helped the discussion in that regard. Since college when the idea was introduced to me that "myth" need not be a term that applies to the truth value of a narrative but rather to how it functions in a culture, I've probably gotten sloppy in assuming most people use the term in a more nuanced way. If I describe the Gospel of Mark as containing an early myth about Jesus, which I would, I wouldn't view that as taking a position on the underlying reality of Jesus as a historical figure. The first is a question for anthropologists and sociologists, maybe philosophers. The latter, a question for historians. The two are separate but they communicate across the boundaries because the soft sciences tend to be that way. Overly isolating the two leads to real problems in understanding the subject matter in question, in my opinion.

Understood. That's why I thought it would make Stem's argument more clear by substituting "story about" for "myth."

[dastardly stem]

Hey Res Ipsa, thanks for the comments and ideas. Much appreciated.

I don't mean to disappoint but I'm going to bow out at this point. I'll respond to a couple of things you said, but overall this isn't feeling very productive anymore. It seems like each of us are filling our posts with condescension and sarcasm and I ain't liking that. It seems to me we're not really hearing each other and in so doing are multiplying the misunderstanding. I'd rather respectfully engage on topics and since we're so deep in I doubt we'll get out of that funk, if we want to call it that. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed much of the exchange and there's almost always something to get out of strident disagreement. I also would like to make clear I hold no ill will towards you or anyone else whose posted. I'm certain once I'm done here I'll leave any personal jabs related to the disagreement here, here.

Anyway, you had said:

OK, that's some progress. Of course, I don't take "of course" as evidence. Show me where Mark has led anyone to make the error you claim they've made. If it has indeed misled "many," you should be able to provide some examples. In fact, as you raised the issue in the context of this discussion, you should be able to show me examples right here in this thread.

My reference to "many" who have been misled is not intended to suggest anyone here as been totally misled. It'd be other people not found in this thread or on this board.

So, time to step up. Show us examples of people being misled by Mark to claim that it's more likely that Jesus was a myth based on a historical person than that Jesus was a myth, regardless of whether the myth is based on a real person or not.

I realize you think I don't understand the Linda problem, and I'd suggest it sounds like you are misunderstanding it, at least, a little too. I would say the asks you have narrowed this down to are getting rather tedious. All the information you are asking for is in the thread already and I really have no interest in replaying the conversations that have already taken place. Of course we can agree to disagree on this.

Let me explain quickly something about the problem that seems to be missed. From the opening quotation as I introduced it:

The biologist and popular science writer Stephen Jay Gould spoke for many when he commented, “I know that the [conjunctive] statement is least probable, yet a little homunculus in my head continues to jump up and down, shouting at me—‘but she can’t just be a bank teller; read the description.’ ”

You see. The problem is not limited to people being completely misled and claiming A+B is more probable. It's that the homunculus in the head starts acting up and people are unwilling to grant the obvious. I know you don't like that I noted you eventually agreed. But I can't help that. You did eventually agree. You say everyone has agreed already. Which is simply not true. People danced around it. And it appears we'll simply disagree here. I propose we agree to disagree and move on to other ventures.

What people are reacting to is the fact that, while the the Linda problem is an interesting way to illustrate a specific problem that can occur in reasoning, no one has been making the mistake that the Linda problem illustrates. So the push back you've been getting is pretty natural reaction to the introduction of a red herring into the discussion. And you've had all kinds of opportunity to explain why you think the Linda problem is relevant to the discussion we've been having, and have been unable to do so.

Admittedly, again, I'm not interested in rehashing, re-evaluating the conversation. To me it was fascinating how it played out. And I explained precisely how the problem is relevant, and why it adds to the points I've raised. All of my explanations can be found in the past 8 or so pages. Again you may disagree. But, disagreement is bound to happen anyway. Admittedly I didn't expect the kind of visceral reaction that came as a result by introducing the problem and subsequent comments. But I found it extremely fascinating. You can say it was because of " the push back you've been getting is pretty natural reaction to the introduction of a red herring ". And I can say, perhaps, but its quite apparent to me that's not the case. And since its not a red herring (granted we'll disagree about that too) that comes off as an excuse, retroactively applied, then an actual explanation of why things happened as they did.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to any rational explanation you can give about why you think the "Linda problem" has any relevance at all to the topic we've been discussing at great length, and in at least the third thread now

Honestly if you can't see the relevance I doubt I'd be able to help again. Its already been explained. And, again, this just feels like a tedious ask. I'd rather leave the conversation as it played out. It was very interesting from my perspective. I don't want to rehash it, or taint it with further posturing and condescension.

As I said, I have no ill will towards you, nor Honor. I'm willing to just say we disagree. There may be plenty there to talk about, but the tenor and course of the discussion has really gone south. Let's move on. And please take the last words.

[honorentheos]

I'll be your Huckleberry.

In summary, "Jesus is a historical figure" is more likely than, "Jesus is a historical figure and myth." The Linda problem is meant to show that, while the easily recognized logical statement "A" is more likely than "A+B" in abstract, people stumble when they apply actual information to the problem. Intuition wants to lead a person to give more weight to evidence that affects the basic logic.

But when it comes to assessing the truth value of a statement, evidence does in fact matter, and when we have it the Linda problem stops being useful. Jesus is a pizza vs being a pepperoni pizza frustrates because Jesus is not a tasty bread base with sauce and toppings, right? Abstractly? Makes sense. It's more likely Jesus is a pizza than that Jesus is a pepperoni pizza. Doesn't matter that he isn't food. The logic is the logic. Given evidence? WTF is Res even talking about? But that's the Linda problem.

In the case of the last few pages of this thread, the problem was evident as stem preferred "Jesus is a myth" as the primary statement, assigning it a higher probability than "Jesus is a historical person." The arrangement was otherwise arbitrary but doing so was intentional so that the preferred statement came first and in isolation. The Linda problem was being abused to try to score a rhetorical point. Now, the savvy reader might recognize this is falling victim to the very thing the Linda problem is warning us away from but that's a matter of history now.

So, when "The Jesus Myth Part IV" drops in three to six months, hopefully the recommendations from Part II to engage with the actual historical context will have snapped into place. Until then, expect more of the same.

Pep. Pep.

[Kishkumen]

I am sorry stem is bowing out. Thanks for posting these threads, stem. I do enjoy them.

[Dr Moore]

I'm not nearly well read enough to add to this discussion.

However, I feel the conversation is incomplete without a few additional creative arguments, inspired by Mopologetics.

I'll make these as assertions without evidence, in Mopologetic fashion, working backward from a set of conclusions that "must" be true.

1) There were multiple people named Jesus. Their stories were conflated by historians after the fact. One of these Jesi was truly the Son of God, who performed miracles and raised himself from the dead, whereas the others were ordinary men who attained notoriety for, eg, philosophy, political rebellion, carpentry, magic.

2) Jesus was a historical figure, but the Biblical authors had no first hand account of him. Their prophetic writings were inspired as a result of physical encounters with items of historical significance, such as a crucifixion cross, a burial tomb, a goblet, a sandal, a donkey, a temple. Therefore, their writings should be believed and given very broad latitude in terms of historical criticism.

3) There is far more about the life of Jesus that we don't know, than what we do know. Therefore, any apparent contradictions are merely the result of our human desire to extrapolate small translation errors or story variations against what we think is a complete picture, but what is really just a few pixels on a 12 megapixel tapestry.

4) If all of the stories about Jesus harmonized perfectly, it would be even more suspicious. The variations and inconsistencies are evidence of the truthfulness of a historical Jesus Christ, Savior of the world.

[dastardly stem]

I am sorry stem is bowing out. Thanks for posting these threads, stem. I do enjoy them.

Thanks, Kishkumen. THat's really nice of you to say. I really enjoyed the threads. And I think there is plenty more to consider, so maybe I'd come back to it and start a new thread in time. This one soured on me, for sure. I'd love to keep the conversation going, but, as Honor's last post demonstrates (and perhaps my last post too.), there is an adamant effort to misunderstand each other, talk past each other, and condescend on weird-ass bases (anyone who thinks the pizza example or switching around the historical and myth was somehow a thoughtful demonstration clearly is not paying attention to the other side). And, no doubt, I was not helping the situation and couldn't see how to get out of it.

I asked myself, are we more likely to listen to each other, consider the ideas and respond without condescension and sarcasm? Or is it more likely, we'd misrepresent and misunderstand then offer sniping condescension in each post? The answer was clear.

[Kishkumen]

Well, as a sop to my good friend dastardly stem, I will say the following. I brought up the subject of the historical Jesus to one of my colleagues in Religion who studies this stuff. I thought it would be a fun mutual back-slapping session. I started to get into my Pilate stuff, and to my surprise my colleague said, "Well, someone could have put that in there for the sake of verisimilitude." I was floored. It definitely tempered my enthusiasm for my case to have someone who knows this stuff 100X better than I do to say that.

And I also started to think about our friend the governor Quirinius. There he sits in the middle of a story about the birth of Jesus that is so riddled with fantasy and myth as to not be the least bit believable. Why is he there? Does he prove that Jesus was born in 6 CE? Surely not! Yes, I could get into the arguments regarding why I think Pilate is more interesting and important than Quirinius, but I have to admit that the presence of historical figures in these narratives is definitely not a slam dunk, and there are arguments to be made that they could be window dressing.