The Jesus Myth Part III

[Kishkumen]

Kiskumen is saying Mark, as in the gospel of Mark, is not myth, in a technical sense. That's not really the question here, though. It's a question of if the character that healed the sick, raised the dead, magical fed thousands and the like, is that myth? That'd be the question, of course.

Is Vespasian's healing of two Alexandrians a myth?

[huckelberry]

Stem, I think this has been a thought provoking discussion even if agreement has not happened. I found a copy of Ehrman's how Jesus became God which I had found use book sale and forgotten about. I have been reading it due to curiosity created by this thread and am finding it a good book.

Ps, if I was looking at Mark alone and not aware of any context of Christian history I would likely think it is more likely fiction than news reporting.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, I think this has been a thought provoking discussion even if agreement has not happened. I found a copy of Ehrman's how Jesus became God which I had found use book sale and forgotten about. I have been reading it due to curiosity created by this thread and am finding it a good book.

Ps, if I was looking at Mark alone and not aware of any context of Christian history I would likely think it is more likely fiction than news reporting.

Thanks for the comments, huckelberry. I very much agree. I've found this all quite interesting. When you finish Ehrman's book, let me know what you think.

[dastardly stem]

Well, that was an irritatingly Mentalgymnast-esque response.

Look, your framing of the argument here is just serving to confirm what Res Ipsa and I said in earlier threads. You're so hung up on the implausible nature of the Gospel of Mark that you treat "Mark is a myth" as a default assumption,

Nope. That's a misunderstanding of my point.

which leads you to treat historicity as an extra premise on top of it that is in need of proof (and for which the evidence doesn't meet your personal standard of proof).

That's true (with a caveat). Claims assume burdens and burdens need to be taken on. We can certainly do whatever we want with evidence for a claim and can set our own personal tolerances. But, it appears, this comes down to, as much as anything a disagreement about where we set our tolerances. Some have said Mark carries good evidence for Jesus' historicity. Some have essentially, it seems to me, used what amounts to the common mopologists arguments about Joseph couldn't have possibly done that by suggesting Mark is good evidence because it seems to fit into the historical context and if there were no historical person Jesus there's no way mark could have done that. Certainly I don't find that impressive, but then again, I'm not impressed if Joseph Smith seemingly got something right.

When Kishkumen, Symmachus, and I explain why that assumption is unwarranted, because of the nature of the culture these texts come from, you say it "seems like a stretch" or simply poke fun at it.

I disagree with this characterization. But, as I said to honor. The records there and we'll likely disagree with how it all went down anyway. I'll just have to leave it alone at this point.

[dastardly stem]

Is Vespasian's healing of two Alexandrians a myth?

myth in what sense?

[dastardly stem]

e

[Manetho]

Nope. That's a misunderstanding of my point.

Well, if that's not it, I don't even know what you're trying to get at when you harp on how "Mark is a myth".

If by "myth" one means "a story that plays a fundamental role in a society", then obviously it is a myth since it is foundational to Christianity, and although Christianity in Mark's time differed wildly from what it later became, presumably some form of the story was foundational to the Christian community in which the gospel was written. But this very broad sense of "myth" can apply to a true story as easily as to a false one, as one can see from a glance at American politics, where political movements of all kinds claim to be in accordance with the wisdom of the "Founding Fathers".

If by "myth" one means "a story involving deities" or "a story involving supernatural events", Mark clearly meets this standard (Jesus performs miracles under the aegis of Yahweh), but as Kishkumen and I keep saying, there are other stories of this type that attach to real people in the ancient world, so the supernatural aspects of Mark are far from dispositive.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, you clearly haven't tried to understand, let alone understood, what people have been telling you. If you had understood, you would have been able to substantively respond rather than simply trying to ridicule what you clearly don't understand.

I disagree with my friends Mantheo's description of your last post as "Mentalgymnast-esque," as it is so far beyond even MG's worst non-responses.

Lots of folks have taken considerable time and effort to address your arguments thoroughly and thoughtfully. If your last post is their reward, why should they even bother?

I'm happy to respond more fully if that's what you want. I really did think this ran it's course. But since you seem interested, I'll lay it out.

You had said, in your last response:

the problem as I see it is that the Linda problem has absolutely nothing to do with whether the contents of Mark are evidence that supports a historical Jesus.

To be clear, this has absolutely zero to do with what I've been saying as per the Linda problem. I certainly have not said it has anything to do with whether the contents of Mark are evidence that supports a historical Jesus. Its a simple demonstration of logic. YOu seem to be conflating why I made the point as per the Linda problem with my application of the problem. That is to say, I think I told you, I had noticed people had been saying Mark is good evidence that Jesus was a historical figure. Ok. I thought. I mean I disagreed, of course, but it got me interested. If one were to only consider Mark, as per Jesus' story, and was presented with the dilemma, would such a one really think it was more likely Jesus was myth and a historical person or not. Every response I got suggested, its just more complicated and it's not easy to just answer the obvious (once one understands the Linda problem). That, my friend, was fascinating to me.

It isn’t an evidence evaluation technique.

I haven't said it is. Its a logical dilemma, of sorts. People are prone to want to conclude more than what's there. They want to say, yes, its more likely, based on Mark, that Jesus is myth and a historical person than just myth.

The way you are trying to apply it, the more points of evidence we find that support a historical Jesus, the less likely it is that we will find a historical Jesus.

That is simply untrue. There is no attempt, whatsoever, to say anything about whether there is evidence for Jesus. Its an absolutely simple question that no one really answered beyond attempts to read something into it, or answer by saying something like, "well, it's complicated...." Or "stem is pretending..." And then went down rabbit trails. I honestly can't tell if Honor simply poisoned the well of the discussion or if people are all intent to think it's got to be complicated and not easy. It's actually quite easy.

But the that principle says nothing about whether any of the facts are evidence of any other.

Precisely, given Mark, if one were to read it, particularly one who is unfamiliar with Christianity, and after reading it was asked.

Is it more likely this character Jesus is myth

or

Is it more likely this character Jesus is myth and is a historical person.

Every time I asked it, no one directly answered it, but everyone accused me of all sorts of silly things. I can't really take that as a considered effort to respond. The mocking and condescension ran its course. I figured we ought to drop it and move on.

If you’re going to read the contents of Mark and evaluate whether the contents are evidence that the story in Mark is based on a real person, you have to rigorously evaluate what you should expect to find in Mark if the story is based on a real person and if it was not. Then you have to figure out which one Mark most closely resembles. The principle illustrated by the Linda problem simply doesn’t apply unless one of the two alternatives is a complete subset of the other.

I mean. Fine. But this is obviously something other than the point I raised. If you are want to say that Mark is a good source of evidence for Jesus having lived. I mean fine. That disagreement I moved away from a long time ago. Why everyone continually misrepresented, or misunderstood the point I raised with the linda problem was extremely interesting.

I'd be happy to own up to any mistakes I made. I'll delete the offending post.

Stem, you're still not trying to understand. The way you pose the exercise here:

Precisely, given Mark, if one were to read it, particularly one who is unfamiliar with Christianity, and after reading it was asked.

Is it more likely this character Jesus is myth

or

Is it more likely this character Jesus is myth and is a historical person.

is nonsensical. Alternative 1 is more likely than 2 regardless of whether one reads Mark or Marx. It is simply the trivial result of the fact that Alternative 2 is a subset of Alternative 1. Put another way, it is impossible, by definition, for something to be in category 2 and not in category 1. It has always been true, is true today, and will always be true, that if category 2 is a subset of category 1, it is impossible for the odds that something falls within category 2 to be greater than the odds that it falls within category 1.

As soon as you combine the contents of Mark with a rule that has to do with categories and subcategories, you are simply talking nonsense. We've tried various subcategories of "nonsense" to try and diagnose exactly which type of nonsense you are engaging in. It might be use of an irrelevant concept. It might be equivocation on the meaning of "myth." It might be several other things. But because you fail to substantively respond to the criticisms, we can't tell exactly which subcategory is applicable.

When someone says that Mark is good evidence for a story based on a real person, they are arguing that the contents of Mark increase the probability that Mark is a story based on a real person as opposed to a story that is not based on a real person. When you respond by saying "Yeah, but the odds are greater that Mark is a story than that Mark is a story based on a real person," you've responded with a complete non-sequitur. We all agree that Mark is a story. And we all agree that it is more likely that Mark is a story than it is that Mark is a story + any other fact that we care to assert. The subject up for discussion is what the characteristics of the story are.

Note that all I've done is substitute the word "story" for "myth" in your example. Do you think that substitution changes your argument in any significant way? If so, I'd say the problem lies in the category of equivocation on the meaning of myth. If you agree that I have restated your argument in a fair way, then please explain why you think that your conclusion tells us anything useful about the contents of Mark. And if you don't think it does, then why refer to Mark at all?

[dastardly stem]

Well, if that's not it, I don't even know what you're trying to get at when you harp on how "Mark is a myth".

I didn't say Mark is a myth. If I didn't say it, I don't know how that can be categorized as harping on it. Here's the question (I fear this will get a little annoying to you, but since there has been so much misunderstanding and then hostility, I think it a good idea to repeat it).

Given Mark, meaning if perhaps someone was unfamiliar with the Jesus story at all and was asked to read Mark's gospel.

Would it be more likely the character Jesus is a myth

or

would it be more likely the character Jesus is a myth and was a real historical person.

I've noticed, for some reason, no one wants to clearly state, Of course its more likely Jesus is a myth rather than a myth and a real historical person. That no one has is interesting.

If by "myth" one means "a story that plays a fundamental role in a society", then obviously it is a myth since it is foundational to Christianity, and although Christianity in Mark's time differed wildly from what it later became, presumably some form of the story was foundational to the Christian community in which the gospel was written. But this very broad sense of "myth" can apply to a true story as easily as to a false one, as one can see from a glance at American politics, where political movements of all kinds claim to be in accordance with the wisdom of the "Founding Fathers".

If by "myth" one means "a story involving deities" or "a story involving supernatural events", Mark clearly meets this standard (Jesus performs miracles under the aegis of Yahweh), but as Kishkumen and I keep saying, there are other stories of this type that attach to real people in the ancient world, so the supernatural aspects of Mark are far from dispositive.

Sounds good. Thanks, Manetho. I don't disagree with any of this.

[Manetho]

Given Mark, meaning if perhaps someone was unfamiliar with the Jesus story at all and was asked to read Mark's gospel.

Would it be more likely the character Jesus is a myth

or

would it be more likely the character Jesus is a myth and was a real historical person.

I've noticed, for some reason, no one wants to clearly state, Of course its more likely Jesus is a myth rather than a myth and a real historical person. That no one has is interesting.

Contrary to what Christianity assumes (because Christians believe Jesus is supremely relevant in all places and at all times), Mark was not written for people in the twenty-first century. The relevant question is not what a modern person would think of it, but what an ancient person would think of it. What did its author think? What did its first readers think? Those are the circumstances that determined how Mark was written, and how it adapted whatever preexisting tradition it was based upon. So the question is whether, given the existence of Mark and the cultural context it fits into, it is better explained as an adaptation of oral stories about a real human, or as an adaptation of some preexisting myth about a divine being who was crucified in the heavens. Modern readers' first impressions are irrelevant.