Doctor X

NO!

Four legs good, two legs better!

--J.D.

Cross Examiner

Family Man,
What you’ve stated aside for now, Mageth's position is that the Gospels are 'myth' with particular attention to the Crucifixion. He claims to know that events therein are not historically verifiable etc. Observe:

Mageth: '...it [the Gospel Crucifixion accounts] is properly a myth and not an historical account'
Mageth: 'I do claim to know that the events are not historically verifiable'
Mageth: '...the entire canonical Gospels are quite correctly referred to as myth'
Mageth: 'The events [Crucifixion details in the Gospels] are the accounts of a religion (or mythology, properly) recorded in a religous [sic] text and are not historically verifiable'
Mageth: 'So there's simply insufficient external sources to verify the Gospels. They thus remain myths.'

So, it is rather clear from the above and elsewhere that Mageth's position (which we'll call argument 1: A1) is that the Gospel's are of the literary genre that he calls 'myth'. Now, Family Man, your stated position (which we'll call argument 2: A2) is that the Gospels are largely but not wholly myth. His deals with literary classification while yours appears to deal with what you believe to be mythic elements in the narratives. Thus, yours (i.e. A2) and his (i.e. A1) are two different, albeit (perhaps) complimentary, positions. Since I, like you, have only so many resources, I will not attend to A2 (or any other digression for that matter) until A1 has been delineated and dealt with. To that end, I intend to hereafter explicate what A1 is apparently proposing and then call for amendment/revision etc. by A1's backers, if any. As my last few posts in this thread attest, we've had a hard time (which I could imagine at, say, Christian forums, but this is IIDB! Go figure.) finding backers for Mageth's argument. But hope springs eternal.
As a matter of personal policy, I stick to addressing one audacious claim at a time. If I attended to every infidel's random, off-topic demand I'd be typing from now to Second Advent. That is to say, in brief, that your particular claim is second in line, not first.
Because from the first sentence alone I could tell immediately that the argument you intended to make therein did not deal with A1, which is what I asked of you. I did not ask you to make another argument but to defend or repudiate Mageth’s argument, formally. By the by, I've glanced over your essay and it looks interesting. Truly, none of this is a personal slight towards you; I'm just a stickler for process. But, as mentioned, Mageth and his argument are simply first in line. Yours will have to wait.
We, that is, you and I, are not engaged in a debate. Even if I were to skip over A1 and go to your A2, we'd need to lay down some ground rules before engaging in a debate anyway.
I thought it was clear what I had in mind. Apparently it wasn't. I hope we're clear after you’ve read this post.
True, you don't have to take A1. But then neither am I obliged to take up a position on your A2 at all, and certainly not until A1 is satisfactorily concluded upon.
I don't? Are you clairvoyant?
Not necessarily so. I'm having a hard time swallowing the claim that the Gospels (that's right, all 4, no distinctions or qualifications whatsoever ... yikes) fall under the broad literary genre of 'myth'. He posted some thing about Apache rain dances or some such in what he apparently thinks is parallel literature to Euaggelion Kata Loukan (i.e. the Gospel according to Luke). You can imagine my incredulity.

chapka,
Frankly, I haven't even read these 'substantive points'. I refuse to follow rabbit trails until I first check out the main highway.
Correct. I've simply been trying to get Mageth to articulate his position. I've also been trying to get Mageth to think about the methodology, if you can even call it that, upon which he apparently bases his position.
To the Gospels? I think we'll need to refine the question before I can offer an affirmation.
Excellent question! You are nearer the crux of it all than any other to date. Unfortunately, I cannot give an answer just yet. It will come though. Process.
The problem is that he gave two definitions, from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, and did not make it clear which he was asserting. Absent explicit indication, I'll assume the first sense. Worse still is that the senses of the word 'myth' found in the American Heritage do not seem to match up well to Merriam, adding to the confusion. So, it appears we've abrogated rule number one: define the terms in question. So this A1, from my perspective, is the argument that never was. I plan to fix that.
You’re in luck chapka because I sure do have something to say about this. I offer the reader what I understand to be Mageth's position: the Gospels are to be categorized under the literary genre of myth. This is argument 1 (i.e. A1):

P0. A myth is a tradition based on ostensibly historical events that seeks to explain praxis, belief, phenomena etc. according to a certain worldview (per first sense of myth found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary)
P1. A myth is not historically verifiable
P2. The Gospels are based on ostensibly historical events that seek to explain praxis, belief, phenomena etc. according to the Christian worldview
P3. The Gospels are not historically verifiable
C4. The Gospels are best classified under the literary genre of myth

Does anyone object to the above? Does anyone wish to add/modify/delete any lines? If this is Mageth’s position, and he does not wish to defend it, is there another that wishes to pick it up for him? Once we get the positions claims/terms down pat I can ask my more meaningful follow-up questions. Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

Vorkosigan

This is the position of a number of scholars. "Historically verifiable" means that use of critical methods on the gospels will yield meaningful nuggets of history. That has not been the case, because there are no methodologies for extracting fact from fiction in the gospels. All of them depend on a priori assumptions about what the Gospels are.

Mageth's position is, methodologically speaking, conservative. That the Crucifixion scenes are built out of the Old Testament may be new to you, but it is not to scholars. Koester and Crossan, for example, both hold that the Passion as a historical event was completely lost to Christians. They believe this because the Passion as we now have it is apparently made up out of various passages in the OT. Randel Helms also holds this view, as does Robert Price, Hermann Detering, and other scholars. Not only is it made up out of the OT, but its structural features, and overall framework, also suggest literary invention rather than historical knowledge. Crossan, who has argued strongly for this position, notes that if at all three levels, individual events, larger structures, and overall frameworks, the Gospels evince literary invention, then they must be literary inventions. See The Birth of Christianity (Crossan) or Gospel Fictions (Helms), both of which are in the list at the sticky at the top of this page.

Really, it is that simple.

So in both major senses the Gospels would be myths -- stories that illuminate people's lives and give them meaning, and fictions about the gods and other divine beings.

The reason no one has "backed" Mageth is that he is quite capable of taking care of himself, and because we have seen this same tired stuff over and over again, and some of us are finding it hard to deal with people who are not aware of basic mainstream scholarship on this issue. Everyone here has read Wright (whom you instanced earlier) but since he is simply the ultimate apologist, no one pays any attention to him (nor do many serious mainstream scholars). Mageth's position: 'I do claim to know that the events are not historically verifiable' is a good thumbnail description of the reality of the state of historical methodology in New Testament studies. You might ponder Peter Kirby's pages on the historical Jesus.

If you have specific events in the Crucifixion/Passion Narrative you'd like to discuss, by all means bring them on; we have a whole slew of well-read people here like Mageth who would happy to discuss specifics.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

If the number of "supporters" of Mageth makes his argument more palatible to BGC, then kindly add me to the number.

--J.D.

Family Man

Mageth's and my position are substantially the same and you know it. The only difference I can tell is that I think some history can be gleaned from them, which is a position for which there is sustantial support in scholarly literature. The audacious claim is that they aren't myths, at least from a scholarly standpoint. I'm not even sure that Mageth would disagree with me.

For example, you point out that Mageth's position is:

And he's right. And I posted 7 reasons why the gospel events aren't historically verifiable. And you've ignored it, not that I'm surprised.

The only thing you're making clear here is that you're avoiding the issue. The case for treating the gospels as myths has been laid out for you quite clearly. If you think we need to lay out some formal rules, lay them out, though we both know that really isn't necessary. I certainly haven't seen anything constructive from you. I think we can reasonably assume you don't have an answer because of your refusal to offer one when given a chance.

spin

What exactly is the lad's position against which you are supporting good Mageth?


spin

LP675

LOL ! I know your pain...

Doctor X

Which would give you an infinite amount of time to type.

Perchance you shall produce Hamlet.

--J.D.