Is Brant Pitre Right About Alex O’Connor

Is Brant Pitre Right About Alex O’Connor? ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/v9dsWHtFv1Y/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Is Brant Pitre Right About Alex O’Connor?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9dsWHtFv1Y) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #biblical-criticism #mythological-development #gospel-genre #resurrection-narratives > author: The Amazing > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9dsWHtFv1Y > date created: 2024-12-19 11:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: Is Brant Pitre right about Alex O'Connor? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Examine genre spectrum theory in biblical scholarship — methodological framework #biblical-criticism - [H2] Research post-resurrection appearance development across gospels — narrative evolution #gospel-analysis - [H3] Analyze straw man fallacy in theological debates — argumentation quality #critical-thinking ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Original Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9dsWHtFv1Y) ## 📝 Summary - A theological debate analysis where The Amazing critiques Brant Pitre's response to Alex O'Connor's claims about mythological development in gospel narratives - The core issue involves whether describing post-resurrection appearance evolution as "mythological development" is academically valid - Key stakeholders include biblical scholars, theologians, and students of religious criticism - Risk of misrepresenting opponents' arguments through selective focus on terminology rather than substance - Bottom line: Genre classification is more nuanced than strict categorical boundaries, and qualified language should be acknowledged in academic discourse ## 📖 Main Content The video examines a theological dispute centered on Alex O'Connor's observation that post-resurrection appearances are absent in Mark but increase in later gospels, which he termed "so-called mythological development." Brant Pitre objects to this characterization, arguing that gospels are biography, not myth, and that myths require centuries to develop. The Amazing argues that Pitre commits several methodological errors: ignoring O'Connor's explicit qualification of the term "mythological," treating genre as rigid categories rather than spectrums, and attacking a straw man version of O'Connor's argument. The analysis suggests that biblical genres can incorporate elements from multiple literary traditions, and that "mythological" can describe specific narrative elements without classifying entire texts as myths. The dispute highlights broader questions about how scholars should approach genre classification in ancient texts and whether post-resurrection narratives can legitimately be described using mythological terminology, even within biographical frameworks. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=0) — [H1] Alex O'Connor's original claim about gospel development - Key idea: Mark lacks post-resurrection appearances while later gospels add increasingly elaborate versions - Evidence: "Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest gospel, contains no post-resurrection appearances" #### ⏱️ [00:30](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=30) — [H2] O'Connor's qualified terminology - Key idea: O'Connor explicitly used cautious language with "so-called mythological development" - Evidence: "Alex quite clearly qualified that terminology by referring to the so-called mythological development" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=75) — [H1] Pitre's genre-based objection - Key idea: Pitre argues gospels are biography, not myth, making mythological terminology inappropriate - Evidence: "The genre of the four gospels is not myth. It's biography" #### ⏱️ [01:45](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=105) — [H2] Genre as spectrum rather than rigid categories - Key idea: Biblical genres blend multiple literary conventions rather than fitting neat boundaries - Evidence: "Genre is not quite the dichomous set of boxes of conventions and features" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=150) — [H3] Methodological sleight of hand in genre arguments - Key idea: Mimicking genre conventions doesn't require meeting all compositional criteria of that genre - Evidence: "You can mimic and you can perform the features and the conventions of a genre" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=225) — [H1] Pitre's temporal argument about myth development - Key idea: Pitre claims myths require centuries to develop, not decades like gospel composition - Evidence: "Myths take centuries to develop. Myths are kind of like cultural memory over time" #### ⏱️ [04:15](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=255) — [H2] Distinction between myth as genre and mythological elements - Key idea: Describing narrative elements as mythological differs from classifying entire texts as myths - Evidence: "You're describing the general classification of an entire narrative or a text as myth" #### ⏱️ [05:00](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=300) — [H3] Category error in Pitre's response - Key idea: Pitre conflates different uses of mythological terminology to attack a straw man - Evidence: "Brad is trying to make it sound like this all comes down to a single specific literary genre" #### ⏱️ [05:45](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=345) — [H2] Post-resurrection appearances as origin myth - Key idea: These narratives function as foundational myths for Christian identity and belief - Evidence: "This is the foundation of people's belief in and understanding of Jesus's mission" #### ⏱️ [06:30](https://youtu.be/v9dsWHtFv1Y?t=390) — [H1] Acknowledgment of incomplete analysis - Key idea: The video only addresses Pitre's first objection, with more content potentially available - Evidence: "This is only the first thing that he's saying about this, and he's going to go on" ## 📚 References - [Original YouTube Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9dsWHtFv1Y) - Gospel of Mark (biblical text) - Greco-Roman biographical literature - Plutarch's Lives (comparative biographical genre) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The debate centers on whether calling gospel narrative development "mythological" is academically legitimate when the term is properly qualified - Genre classification in ancient literature operates more as overlapping spectrums than rigid categorical boundaries - Attacking qualified terminology while ignoring substantive arguments constitutes a methodological flaw in academic discourse ## 📰 Newsletter This theological analysis offers valuable lessons for anyone engaged in academic or professional debates. The key insight is recognizing when opponents use qualified language versus absolute claims, and addressing arguments substantively rather than getting distracted by terminology disputes. The discussion highlights how genre classification works more as a spectrum than rigid categories - a principle applicable beyond biblical studies to content strategy, documentation, and communication frameworks. When someone says "so-called" or uses other qualifiers, they're acknowledging nuance that deserves recognition in response. For those working in technical or academic fields, this demonstrates the importance of steel-manning opponents' positions rather than attacking straw man versions, and focusing on methodological substance over semantic disputes. Resources: [Learn WordPress](https://learn.wordpress.org/), [Developer Docs](https://developer.wordpress.org/), [WP-CLI](https://wp-cli.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Use this analysis framework for technical debates and documentation reviews - Education: Incorporate lessons about qualified language and genre spectrums into writing workshops - Community management: Apply steel-manning principles to moderate technical discussions fairly #### Community - Contributors: Model substantive engagement with opposing viewpoints in code review discussions - Maintainers: Address methodological concerns in project governance disputes using similar analytical frameworks ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Academic debates improve when participants acknowledge opponents' qualified language rather than attacking absolute versions - Genre classification works more effectively as spectrum analysis than rigid categorical assignment - Straw man arguments decrease productive discourse by shifting focus from substance to semantics - Methodological transparency in argumentation increases scholarly credibility and productive dialogue ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of qualified vs. absolute claims in academic discourse - Content analysis of genre spectrum theory applications across disciplines - Case study analysis of productive vs. unproductive theological debates ### ❓ Questions - How can academic institutions better train scholars to recognize and address qualified arguments? - What frameworks help distinguish between legitimate terminology critique and semantic distraction? - How does genre spectrum theory apply to contemporary digital content classification? ### 🔮 Future Research - Cross-disciplinary study of genre spectrum applications beyond biblical studies - Analysis of debate quality improvement through steel-manning training interventions - Investigation of qualified language recognition in AI-assisted academic writing tools ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Improved argumentation quality through opponent position acknowledgment - Policy: Academic integrity standards for addressing qualified claims in scholarly discourse - Education: Training programs for recognizing and avoiding straw man fallacies in technical debates - Community: Better moderation frameworks for substantive vs. semantic dispute resolution ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12-14 (Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Video format with speaker presentation - Improve: Argument structure diagrams, genre spectrum visualizations, fallacy identification charts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Audio commentary with clear narration - Improve: Podcast version with chapter markers for different argument sections #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive quotations, terminology definitions, comparative analysis - Improve: Glossary of theological terms, analogy-driven explanations of genre theory #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step argument deconstruction - Improve: Interactive debate analysis exercises, argument mapping activities #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Structured criticism with numbered points and evidence - Improve: Decision trees for identifying fallacies, systematic genre classification frameworks #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Engagement with ongoing scholarly debate - Improve: Discussion prompts for theological study groups, collaborative analysis frameworks #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual critical analysis and reflection - Improve: Self-assessment questions for argument quality, personal study guides #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Evolution metaphors for narrative development - Improve: Organic growth analogies for mythological elements, ecosystem thinking about genre relationships ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, quoted material distinguished - Improve: More descriptive headings for argument sections, better alt text for any visual elements #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls accessible - Improve: Chapter navigation, transcript jumping capabilities #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard video contrast levels - Improve: High contrast mode options, adjustable text sizing for any overlays #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided in analysis - Improve: Time-stamped captions, downloadable transcript versions ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Western theological tradition focus - Improve: Comparative mythology examples from diverse religious traditions #### Inclusive language - Present: Gender-neutral academic terminology - Improve: Plain language summaries, reduced jargon density #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured argument breakdown, clear section divisions - Improve: Executive summary version, visual argument flow charts #### Representation - Present: Male scholar voices primarily referenced - Improve: Include diverse biblical scholarship perspectives, varied methodological approaches ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Clear logical progression from qualified language to methodological conclusions - Inductive strength: Pattern recognition across multiple argument types and scholarly approaches - Causal reasoning: Links between argument quality and debate outcomes effectively established - Analogical strength: Genre spectrum analogy works well across disciplinary boundaries #### Fallacies - Straw man: Identified and criticized in Pitre's approach - video's primary analytical strength - False dichotomy: Noted in rigid genre categorization - well-addressed methodological concern #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic but accessible, critical but fair, with appropriate scholarly humility about limitations ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns observed in the theological analysis - Attack: Focus remains on methodological critique rather than personal attacks - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender dynamics present in this academic context - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Appropriately passionate about scholarly rigor without personal animosity ## 🎯 Conclusion The analysis effectively demonstrates that academic discourse improves when scholars acknowledge opponents' qualified language and address substantive arguments rather than attacking semantic choices. The genre spectrum approach offers a more nuanced framework for understanding ancient texts than rigid categorical boundaries. Practitioners in any field can apply these principles by steel-manning opponents' positions, recognizing methodological qualifications, and focusing debates on substantive rather than terminological concerns. This approach leads to more productive discourse and better scholarly outcomes. The broader implication suggests that theological and academic debates benefit from methodological transparency and good-faith engagement with opposing viewpoints, principles applicable across disciplines and professional contexts. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Genre operates as spectrum rather than rigid categories > [!quote] Is Brant Pitre right about Alex O'Connor? by [[The Amazing]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "Genre is not quite the dichomous set of boxes of conventions and features that Brad is kind of presenting it as." Challenges binary approaches to literary classification in biblical studies and other academic fields. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9dsWHtFv1Y#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_genre-spectrum-theory ### [H2] Qualified language deserves acknowledgment in academic discourse > [!quote] Is Brant Pitre right about Alex O'Connor? > "Alex quite clearly qualified that terminology by referring to the so-called mythological development." Demonstrates importance of recognizing hedged claims rather than attacking absolute versions of opponents' arguments. [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9dsWHtFv1Y#H2) #xref ID:rw_qualified-academic-language --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. Split level: H4 #### [Z1] Straw man fallacies shift focus from substance - Applies across academic disciplines and professional debates - Pointer to 4:15 timestamp on category error analysis - Links: [[Logical-Fallacies]] [[Academic-Discourse]] #### [Z2] Mythological elements can exist within biographical genres - Ancient texts often blend multiple literary conventions - Pointer to 2:30 timestamp on genre spectrum discussion - Links: [[Biblical-Genre]] [[Literary-Criticism]] --- ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue Purpose: Capture quick actions for Fleeting notes. - [F1] Research Plutarch's Lives genre conventions — comparative analysis context #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Investigate steel-manning training programs — debate quality improvement #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Explore genre spectrum theory applications — cross-disciplinary methodology #fleeting #inbox --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] It does seem to me suspicious, for [00:01] example, that the Gospel of Mark, which [00:03] is the earliest gospel, contains no [00:05] post-resurrection appearances. [00:07] >> All right, let's see it. And then the [00:08] Gospel of Matthew does include [00:10] post-resurrection appearances. The [00:12] Gospel of Luke includes even more. So, [00:14] in my view, what we have is this [00:15] so-called mythological development of no [00:17] post-resurrection appearances. And as [00:20] time goes on, as we get further away [00:21] from the source, the stories get more [00:22] fantastical. [00:23] >> You'll notice he said that what we have [00:25] here is a mythological development. [00:26] >> Well, hang on now. Let's be accurate. [00:29] Alex quite clearly qualified that [00:31] terminology by referring to the [00:33] so-called mythological development. So [00:36] he's not quite committed to that [00:39] language and also to focus on that [00:42] language is to ignore the actual point [00:45] that is being made throughout the video. [00:47] >> I think that's a major category mistake. [00:50] Why? Well, because the genre of the four [00:52] gospels is not myth. It's biography. [00:55] >> So I have a few concerns with this. And [00:57] again, most fundamentally, this is [00:59] ignoring the point that Alex is making [01:02] to focus on the language and criticize [01:05] the language that Alex quite explicitly [01:07] qualified. But let's talk about genre. [01:10] Genre is not quite the dichomous set of [01:15] boxes of conventions and features that [01:17] Brad is kind of presenting it as. It's [01:20] more of a spectrum. And the gospels are [01:23] not strictly Greco Roman biography. They [01:26] are appealing to conventions and [01:27] features of Greco Roman biography, but [01:30] they also appeal to features of other [01:33] genres. And while they're much more [01:35] biography than they are myth, even [01:39] Grecomor Roman biographies can include [01:41] elements that can be legitimately [01:44] described as mythological. So there's [01:47] nothing wrong with talking about a [01:49] mythological development. In fact, Alex [01:52] is talking about Mark, the original [01:54] gospel, the first gospel, as not having [01:57] that mythological element. So that would [01:59] more closely relate to the Greco Roman [02:03] biography genre. And then it's the later [02:05] gospels that bring this element in and [02:09] add the stories about post-resurrection [02:12] appearances. So I think this is a bit of [02:16] a straw man. I think this is focusing on [02:18] one piece of qualified language without [02:21] acknowledging that it has been qualified [02:23] and making a mountain out of that [02:25] lexical molehill. And I think the [02:28] argument about the language is also not [02:31] entirely accurate and is presupposing a [02:34] rather dichomous and binary [02:35] conceptualization of genre that has been [02:38] addressed for years by scholars who [02:40] suggest that genre is not a set of rules [02:42] where you have to be within the lines of [02:45] this rule or you don't get to count as [02:47] that genre. Genre is blended. It can be [02:51] hybrid. It exists more on a spectrum [02:53] than as parts of a dichotomy. Their [02:56] closest analogies are the biographies of [02:59] people like Alexander the Great, [03:01] Plutarch's lives, Swutonius's [03:03] biographies of the Caesars. They tend to [03:05] be written either within living memory [03:08] of the events or by people who knew [03:10] people who had access to the lives and [03:12] character of the person in question. [03:14] >> So, a couple of concerns here. One, [03:17] again, Alex referred to the first [03:19] gospel, Mark, not having that particular [03:22] mythological element. So that would make [03:25] Mark much closer to Grecoman biography. [03:29] And the fact that it was later folks who [03:32] are even further away from these events [03:34] than the author of the Gospel of Mark [03:36] who are adding these elements doesn't [03:39] mean wait a minute that can't be myth. [03:42] It means wait a minute that's further [03:45] away from Grecoman biography. And Brad [03:47] here seems to be trying to argue that [03:50] because Greor Roman biography usually is [03:53] written by someone who knew the [03:55] individual in question or knew someone [03:57] who had access to the individual or I [04:01] witness details about that individual. [04:03] Brad seems to be tacitly suggesting that [04:06] we should therefore assume that the [04:08] gospels were written in the same way. [04:12] But you can mimic and you can perform [04:15] the features and the conventions of a [04:18] genre and approximate that genre without [04:21] all of the underlying or the meta [04:25] details about the composition of [04:26] Grecomor Roman biography also being true [04:29] of your composition. In other words, [04:31] just because Grecoman biographies were [04:34] frequently written by people who either [04:36] knew the individual or had direct access [04:38] to eyewitness testimony, that doesn't [04:39] mean we should therefore assume the [04:41] exact same thing about all the gospels. [04:44] That is a methodological slight of hand. [04:47] But again, we're trying to leverage the [04:50] genre to suggest that well, the gospels [04:53] would have had to have followed all [04:54] these rules. And again, what Alex is [04:57] pointing out is that the first gospel [04:59] did seem to follow that rule, at least [05:01] according to this one piece of [05:03] mythological narrative. And it was later [05:07] gospels again gospels that are coming [05:09] further away from [05:12] the events and even further away from [05:15] the first iteration of the narrative [05:19] about Jesus written in the Grecoman [05:22] biography genre that are adding that [05:24] mythological detail. So just because [05:26] that's not how myth works does not mean [05:29] that can't be what's going on in Matthew [05:31] and in Luke. [05:32] >> That is not how myth works. Myths take [05:35] centuries to develop. Myths are kind of [05:37] like cultural memory over time passed [05:40] down. [05:40] >> So here Brad is collapsing the [05:42] distinction between myth as a literary [05:46] genre and the adjective mythological as [05:49] a description of constituent elements of [05:52] a broader narrative because you can have [05:55] again mythological elements within [05:57] biography. But to say this cannot be [06:01] so-called mythological development [06:04] because a myth is a a national charter [06:08] foundation narrative writ large that [06:11] develops over centuries and has to do [06:13] with cosmology and origins and divine [06:17] action and all that kind of stuff. [06:18] You're describing the general [06:21] classification of an entire narrative or [06:24] a text as myth. that is distinct from [06:28] saying this element within this story is [06:31] mythological. [06:33] That's what Alex described and again [06:35] Alex qualified it saying so-called [06:37] mythological development. So I think [06:40] there is a bit of a methodological [06:43] slight of hand going on here where we [06:45] are departing from what Alex described [06:48] and instead attacking this straw man of [06:51] oh Alex said the gospels were myth [06:54] entirely solely [06:57] exclusively myth and that has absolutely [06:59] nothing whatsoever to do with what Alex [07:01] said and again is focusing on that [07:04] qualified language rather than on the [07:07] specific argument. [07:08] time passed down. No, what we have here [07:11] are biographical accounts. They're [07:12] making extraordinary claims to be sure. [07:14] I mean, ordinarily dead people stay [07:15] dead. So, the resurrection is a big [07:17] claim, but it's not a mythological [07:18] claim. It is a supernatural claim, but [07:20] it's not mythological because the [07:22] gospels are only writing decades after [07:24] the event, not centuries. Myths take [07:27] centuries to develop. So, that's the [07:28] first thing I would say. The second [07:29] thing I would say is, [07:33] >> so I think this is a category error on [07:35] Brad's part because Brad is trying to [07:37] make it sound like this all comes down [07:40] to a single specific literary genre, [07:43] myth. And this is something that takes [07:45] centuries to develop. And it's about [07:47] ultimate origins and cosmology and [07:50] divine narratives. And these are charter [07:53] myths. These are origin myths. These are [07:55] ideologies for entire nations and things [07:57] like that. Yes. writ large the genre of [08:00] myth describes a quite different [08:02] narrative but Alex didn't say this is [08:06] myth Alex talked about mythological [08:09] development and the adjective [08:12] mythological I think can appropriately [08:14] be applied to specific elements of a [08:18] narrative that get tacked on to a [08:21] narrative that didn't originally have [08:23] them and I think we could even say that [08:26] this particular mythological element [08:28] qualifies as myth to the degree that [08:31] people understand the post-resurrection [08:33] appearances to be the origin myth of the [08:38] Christian movement. This is the [08:40] foundation of people's belief in and [08:44] understanding of Jesus's mission and [08:47] identity. The fact that he came back and [08:49] appeared to people as a resurrected [08:52] divine being. I think that particular [08:56] narrative element [08:58] qualifies [08:59] as myth at least in some sense. But [09:03] again, what Alex referred to was a [09:05] socalled mythological development. He [09:08] qualified the language and just used an [09:11] adjective that does not have to mean [09:15] the story is entirely and solely and [09:18] exclusively [09:20] myth. you can have mythological elements [09:23] within other genres. So I think Brad [09:26] himself is committing a category error [09:29] here and is a bit fellaciously [09:33] kind of sidstepping the argument to [09:36] focus on this categorization question [09:39] and I think does not accurately [09:41] represent where things stand regarding [09:43] the nature of genre and the nature of [09:46] myth. Now there is a tease at the end of [09:49] this video. Obviously, this is only the [09:51] first thing that he's saying about this, [09:53] and he's going to go on to say a second [09:55] thing. So, it sounds like in the rest of [09:57] the interview, he might actually address [10:00] what Alex has to say about this. Uh, I [10:02] haven't seen that because this is just [10:04] the video that I happen to come across [10:07] on social media. I I may go look at the [10:10] rest of the interview, at least related [10:12] to what Alex said, and respond to that [10:14] if I have the opportunity. But at least [10:17] regarding this first concern that Alex [10:20] has somehow committed a category error [10:22] by referring to this development in the [10:26] narrative as a so-called mythological [10:29] development. I think this concern is [10:31] misplaced. I think it's a little [10:32] facious. I think it's a straw man and I [10:34] think it rather misrepresents what Alex [10:37] is presenting the gospels to be and this [10:39] particular narrative element to be. And [10:42] the fit for this video is The Amazing  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Is Brant Pitre Right About Alex O’Connor.md|Is Brant Pitre Right About Alex O’Connor? by YouTube]] ## Highlights - and in Luke. >> That is not how myth works. Myths take centuries to develop. Myths are kind of like cultural memory over time passed down. >> So here Brad is collapsing the distinction between myth as a literary genre and the adjective mythological as a description of constituent elements of a broader narrative because you can have again mythological elements within biography. But to say this cannot be ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpv0tebhqypyw4068b2fmwb7)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - people understand the post-resurrection appearances to be the origin myth of the Christian movement. This is the foundation of people's belief in and understanding of Jesus's mission and identity. The fact that he came back and appeared to people as a resurrected divine being. I think that particular narrative element qualifies as myth at least in some sense. But ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kpv0tec9zpjgm5d1h10pac9z)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted