The Jesus Myth Part III

[Res Ipsa]

Well, that's part of my concern with Stem's use of "myth."

I'd like to understand your concern, Res Ipsa. You accused me earlier, I asked for clarification and didn't get it. When I offered you the definition, you dropped it. Not sure what the problem was. What is your concern with the use of the term myth.

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.

I think your use of the word "accused" indicates unwarranted defensiveness on your part. What we're discussing is a potential mistake in argumentation, which anyone can do at any time.

My concern is based your use of the Linda problem as any kind of response to someone referring to the contents of Mark as evidence for a real-guy Jesus. It's a complete non-sequitur that could be due to any of a number of mistakes, including not understanding the principle that the Linda problem illustrates (which I described as irrelevance) or using inconsistent definitions for the word "myth" (which I described as equivocation). After I felt as if I got non-responsive reactions initially, I tried to figure it by providing similar examples that eliminated any potential issues with the meaning of "myth" by substituting "story." You seem unwilling to do that, which indicates to me there is some kind of equivocation going on in how you are using the word myth. But, I could be wrong.

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.

I'll try from one more angle: trying to condense the argument as I see it to illustrate the problem.

Kish, et al: The contents of Mark are more consistent with a story based on a historical person than a story not based on a historical person.

Stem: It is less probable that Mark is a story and is based on a historical person than it is that Mark is a story!

RI: How is that relevant to what Kish et al just said?

Stem: [fill in the blank]

[Res Ipsa]

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.

This is the problem with your response. Simply repeating the same argument over and over and over without substantively responding to the issues that have been raised doesn't advance understanding at all.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, you're still not trying to understand.

That is completely not true. Of course I'm trying to understand. But if for whatever reason I'm missing something, I'm happy to reconsider your points here and see what you can teach me.

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.[/quote]

Great.

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.

Great again. Sounds like we agree. Finally. Or we agreed the whole time and you simply refused to respond to me, perhaps?

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.

thanks for these comments. How is it nonsensical if you clearly (and finally, might I add) responded with an agreement that "It has always been true, is true today, and will always be true"? You say I am trying to "combine the contents of Mark with a rule that has to do with categories and subcategories" I ask, what do you mean? Where have I done that?

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.

I get that, that's been the contention from some. But stating so isn't really an argument and of course the arguments, if ever they are given are particularly weak.

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.

Well, if everyone agrees, then great. Why is everyone mischaracterizing what I"ve said? by the way I'm not responding to people's claim of Mark being good evidence for Jesus' historicity with "Yeah, but the odds are greater that Mark is a story than that Mark is a story based on a real person," nor anything near that. That's a complete misrepresentation of what I've said and done. Perhaps your claim of I haven't tried to understand is more applicable to you? Your have missed what I've said and turned into something I haven't said. Quite a number of times. This exercise about the conjunction isn't a response, it's a question of logic.

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?

Ah...I see. In my explanation I pointed out that Mark was used as evidence for the claim of Mark--Jesus really lived. Fine by me. I mean I disagree for many reasons and not just because it's a bit circular. But whatever. I'm not concerned about that on this point. But I thought what if we only considered Mark, as if someone unfamilliar with Christianity was given Mark, and they read the story of Jesus and were asked, is it more likely...and the rest has been repeated too often to repeat again.

As it turned out, in offering that simple thought exercise I got accused of all sorts of silly things as everyone ran down all sorts of rabbit trails. As you say, of course its more probable Jesus is myth and less probable Jesus is myth and is a real person. That'll always be true.

Now if you want to say, but Mark is good evidence for Jesus' historicity. Fine. I disagree. Have been through that enough times now.

[dastardly stem]

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.

I very much agree. The first impression was simply a thought exercise.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, true or false?

Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a myth than that Jesus was a myth and not based on a historical figure?

ETA: Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a pizza than that Jesus was a pepperoni pizza.

[dastardly stem]

I think your use of the word "accused" indicates unwarranted defensiveness on your part. What we're discussing is a potential mistake in argumentation, which anyone can do at any time.

My concern is based your use of the Linda problem as any kind of response to someone referring to the contents of Mark as evidence for a real-guy Jesus. It's a complete non-sequitur that could be due to any of a number of mistakes, including not understanding the principle that the Linda problem illustrates (which I described as irrelevance) or using inconsistent definitions for the word "myth" (which I described as equivocation). After I felt as if I got non-responsive reactions initially, I tried to figure it by providing similar examples that eliminated any potential issues with the meaning of "myth" by substituting "story." You seem unwilling to do that, which indicates to me there is some kind of equivocation going on in how you are using the word myth. But, I could be wrong.

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.

Then it appears you've misunderstood the thought exercise. Hopefully my last post helped explain that. You seem to be trying way too hard to read something into it. Its resulted in a ton of you mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what I'm saying. Of course not just you, plenty of others. And that was fascinating to me.

I'll try from one more angle: trying to condense the argument as I see it to illustrate the problem.

Kish, et al: The contents of Mark are more consistent with a story based on a historical person than a story not based on a historical person.

Stem: It is less probable that Mark is a story and is based on a historical person than it is that Mark is a story!

RI: How is that relevant to what Kish et al just said?

Stem: [fill in the blank]

That wasn't my response to Kish's contention. I can disagree with him though. I'd have to see solid reason to think Mark is more consistent with a story based on a historical person than not a historical person.

[dastardly stem]

Stem, true or false?

Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a myth than that Jesus was a myth and not based on a historical figure?

ETA: Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a pizza than that Jesus was a pepperoni pizza.

Given Mark? Neither is more probable.

If we tried you take on the Linda example:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Is it more likely LInda is a pizza or a pepperoni pizza?

Neither is more likely than the other.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, true or false?

Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a myth than that Jesus was a myth and not based on a historical figure?

ETA: Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a pizza than that Jesus was a pepperoni pizza.

Given Mark? Neither is more probable.

If we tried you take on the Linda example:

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations.

Is it more likely LInda is a pizza or a pepperoni pizza?

Neither is more likely than the other.

Answer the first example.

ETA: The preamble for the Linda problem has nothing to do with the logical principle the problem is based on. It is always true that the likelihood that something belongs to a subset cannot exceed the likelihood that that it belongs to the set

[dastardly stem]

Answer the first example.

Answer whether Jesus is a pizza or pepperoni one? I answered that.

[Res Ipsa]

Answer the first example.

Answer whether Jesus is a pizza or pepperoni one? I answered that.

No. First one was:

Stem, true or false?

Given the contents of Mark, it is more probable that Jesus was a myth than that Jesus was a myth and not based on a historical figure?