The Jesus Myth: An unrelenting case for history

[Philo Sofee]

BYP mentioned the posters on this thread so many times in his podcast and he is only up to page six...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luNgyV9OO6Q

Thanks Moksha. This topic is discussed so well in these threads I can't help but enjoy sharing the collective knowledge. We have some fantastic thinkers here! I enjoy giving them kudos.

[Kishkumen]

I read this in Suetonius "The Twelve Caesars" and Tiberius was a real piece of work wasn't he?!? Er, that is, if the stories are true. Fascinating, but it does make one glad to be alive today in our civilization!
Edited to add: https://historum.com/t/tiberius-on-capr ... re.189891/
this discussion of this entire issue of Suetonius on Tiberius at Capri is UTTERLY FASCINATING READING! Thanks, as always Kish, for the fascinating hints!

THANK YOU for taking the time to read and consider the material. You are ideally positioned to appreciate this stuff with your deep background studying both antiquity and mythicism.

[Philo Sofee]

I read this in Suetonius "The Twelve Caesars" and Tiberius was a real piece of work wasn't he?!? Er, that is, if the stories are true. Fascinating, but it does make one glad to be alive today in our civilization!
Edited to add: https://historum.com/t/tiberius-on-capr ... re.189891/
this discussion of this entire issue of Suetonius on Tiberius at Capri is UTTERLY FASCINATING READING! Thanks, as always Kish, for the fascinating hints!

THANK YOU for taking the time to read and consider the material. You are ideally positioned to appreciate this stuff with your deep background studying both antiquity and mythicism.

Oh, I have found through the years that your hints are VERY valuable and well worth pursuing Kish. It is my good pleasure.

[huckelberry]

Hugh Nibley would be very proud of the extensive parallels you have shown.

Agreed. It's the same method most of us strongly reject in the context of Book of Mormon historicity. One could easily annotate the tables with the differences between the two examples.

I took a little time to listen to Philo present his backyard professor review of this thread so found myself thinking about it again.

Philo took issue with this post saying that what Nibley and McDonald were trying to do are two entirely different things. That is very true but the possible common element is not their purpose but the possibility that being invested in some sort of purpose to find parallels may exaggerate the parallel element.When hunting parallels the the hope of discovery might cause parallels to appear larger than they would without the hope of discovery. Vaguely similar common tropes (as those in the charts) get seized upon as parallels. I find myself uncertain how to increase the objective measurement of the significance of perceived parallels (unless there is clear copying such as parallels to Mark in Luke). It is hard to speak to the examples in the parallel charts at the beginning of this thread. I found them so vague as to be borderline comic.

///edited to speak more clearly, hopefully.

[huckelberry]

HI Philo, This morning I tried again to see your point about uniqueness or commonality in pictures of Jesus. There seems to be a tricky mix of considerations to see. You spoke a changing Mormon presentations of their relationship to the rest of Christianity. I was taught that the LDS was the only genuine church of Jesus and and the most correct in doctrines and authority. I was certainly aware of, the church has never hid, the many elements in common with the rest of the varieties of Christian groups. There is the same Bible, same Jesus same Paul, same baptism and sacrament, doctrine of atonement and grace ( well not a Calvinist version of course). But those did not erase how the church saw itself as unique. In presenting itself there is no reason not to be able to alternate between emphasis on what is different and emphasis on what is in common.

I was truly puzzled by your Justin Martyr comments. I think it is very clear that Justin saw Jesus as singular. Now nothing human is absolutely unique. It can only have some unique qualities. For Justin that unique dimension lay in his belief that the story was not myth at all but sober literal fact. He made a passing comment that similarities to other beliefs should be reason not to consider Christians criminals. People were aware of similarities so the comment might have had some usefulness for that purpose.

(this thread leads with the Justin comments)

[huckelberry]

I think that any culture is going to have stylistic devices it uses in story telling. There would be patterns that people hear and are inclined to repeat. As well as culture patterns there are patterns which people can see as making a story to repeat. That would be true of both literary elite and common folks who like to tell and hear a story just like literate people. I think we all know people with a flair for story telling. They can take events and see the story patter and in the telling get a laugh or some other wow. Of course there is a tendency to emphasis the good story qualities of events. It slips easily into stretch the story. It can also stretch into fabrication. People like to hear what should have been or what story illustrates the real situation.

I think in any story telling these patterns of human stories are going to result in parallels with other stories. I seriously doubt that it would be possible for the author of Mark to tell his story and remain entirely innocent of parallels with other stories. I think it difficult to mark out dividing lines where the parallels resulted from noticing how events fit an story type, where events have been massaged to fit a story better, where they have become no longer real,where they become pious fiction.

I have seen no evidence Mark is making up in whole a fictious character. That is an extrodinary claim requiring extrodinary evidence. Such evidence is not present.

Clear evidence that people before Mark believed in an angel only Jesus is lacking.

[Philo Sofee]

Agreed. It's the same method most of us strongly reject in the context of Book of Mormon historicity. One could easily annotate the tables with the differences between the two examples.

I took a little time to listen to Philo present his backyard professor review of this thread so found myself thinking about it again.

Philo took issue with this post saying that what Nibley and McDonald were trying to do are two entirely different things. That is very true but the possible common element is not their purpose but the possibility that being invested in some sort of purpose to find parallels may exaggerate the parallel element.When hunting parallels the the hope of discovery might cause parallels to appear larger than they would without the hope of discovery. Vaguely similar common tropes (as those in the charts) get seized upon as parallels. I find myself uncertain how to increase the objective measurement of the significance of perceived parallels (unless there is clear copying such as parallels to Mark in Luke). It is hard to speak to the examples in the parallel charts at the beginning of this thread. I found them so vague as to be borderline comic.

///edited to speak more clearly, hopefully.

Well, so far as I can tell no parallels are ever perfect either, anymore than we who make them. i am not so sure there is an objective standard to be had when parallels show up, it depends on how educated the person is I would think.

[Res Ipsa]

I took a little time to listen to Philo present his backyard professor review of this thread so found myself thinking about it again.

Philo took issue with this post saying that what Nibley and McDonald were trying to do are two entirely different things. That is very true but the possible common element is not their purpose but the possibility that being invested in some sort of purpose to find parallels may exaggerate the parallel element.When hunting parallels the the hope of discovery might cause parallels to appear larger than they would without the hope of discovery. Vaguely similar common tropes (as those in the charts) get seized upon as parallels. I find myself uncertain how to increase the objective measurement of the significance of perceived parallels (unless there is clear copying such as parallels to Mark in Luke). It is hard to speak to the examples in the parallel charts at the beginning of this thread. I found them so vague as to be borderline comic.

///edited to speak more clearly, hopefully.

Well, so far as I can tell no parallels are ever perfect either, anymore than we who make them. i am not so sure there is an objective standard to be had when parallels show up, it depends on how educated the person is I would think.

The lack of an objective standard should be a red flag that leads one to be highly skeptical of the method. Whatever differences there are in intent between Nibley and McDonald are irrelevant if the method is flawed. And it is. To understand the relationship, if any, between two anythings requires careful consideration of both the similarities and the differences, together with a reasoned analysis of which similarities and which differences matter. That is how I suggest an “educated person” Would approach the issue.

[Kishkumen]

The lack of an objective standard should be a red flag that leads one to be highly skeptical of the method. Whatever differences there are in intent between Nibley and McDonald are irrelevant if the method is flawed. And it is. To understand the relationship, if any, between two anythings requires careful consideration of both the similarities and the differences, together with a reasoned analysis of which similarities and which differences matter. That is how I suggest an “educated person” Would approach the issue.

Is it desirable to have an objective standard for meaning making? I agree with you that comparison requires careful consideration of similarities and differences, but what is the point of the exercise? We probably got Nibley's point wrong, but then he should have done a better job of explaining what he was up to. McDonald's method is fine. I look at what he is doing as opening up our understanding of the possibilities re: how the Gospels were composed and interpreted. It is impossible to read the minds of authors and readers, but it is possible to peek into the thought world that informed those compositions and interpretations to make a reasonable stab at what might be going on. Short of mind reading, that's probably as much as we can do. Thank goodness we can do that.

[Res Ipsa]

The lack of an objective standard should be a red flag that leads one to be highly skeptical of the method. Whatever differences there are in intent between Nibley and McDonald are irrelevant if the method is flawed. And it is. To understand the relationship, if any, between two anythings requires careful consideration of both the similarities and the differences, together with a reasoned analysis of which similarities and which differences matter. That is how I suggest an “educated person” Would approach the issue.

Is it desirable to have an objective standard for meaning making? I agree with you that comparison requires careful consideration of similarities and differences, but what is the point of the exercise? We probably got Nibley's point wrong, but then he should have done a better job of explaining what he was up to. McDonald's method is fine. I look at what he is doing as opening up our understanding of the possibilities re: how the Gospels were composed and interpreted. It is impossible to read the minds of authors and readers, but it is possible to peek into the thought world that informed those compositions and interpretations to make a reasonable stab at what might be going on. Short of mind reading, that's probably as much as we can do. Thank goodness we can do that.

I don’t know about desirability, but I’m skeptical at the notion of objectively making meaning. If the exercise in this case is to try and understand how Justin and his contemporaries thought about the gospels, fully recognizing our limitations, I have no quarrel. Giving the parallels asserted by Justin evidentiary value on the question of Jesus’s existence is where my quarrel lies.