David Friedman said that you should be immediately suspicious of any anecdote good enough to survive on its literary merits. It’s a very good heuristic, since real-life events are rarely structured in a way that makes for a fun plot. Even if the core of the story is true, people retelling it usually have an irresistible urge to improve its literary qualities at the expense of accuracy.
That said, I’m surprised that Tyler Cowen would fall for this one. It really raises all the red flags.
Most Christians today are very unlike its intended audience; most of them never read it in large chunks, let alone straight through; most of them read it through several extra layers of interpretation that were almost certainly not present in the original (and which, in my opinion, detract from one of the chief literary merits of Mark, the sense of mystery it cultivates and maintains).
David Friedman said that you should be immediately suspicious of any anecdote good enough to survive on its literary merits. It’s a very good heuristic, since real-life events are rarely structured in a way that makes for a fun plot. Even if the core of the story is true, people retelling it usually have an irresistible urge to improve its literary qualities at the expense of accuracy.
That said, I’m surprised that Tyler Cowen would fall for this one. It really raises all the red flags.
The gospel of Mark has tremendous literary merit.
“Tremendous” is rather generous. It does indeed have literary merit, but that’s hardly why it’s successful.
Do you have a reason to think that’s hardly why it’s successful?
Most Christians today are very unlike its intended audience; most of them never read it in large chunks, let alone straight through; most of them read it through several extra layers of interpretation that were almost certainly not present in the original (and which, in my opinion, detract from one of the chief literary merits of Mark, the sense of mystery it cultivates and maintains).