avi

Well, yes, but only in our culture. Take it to rural India or Kenya or Papua New Guinea, translate it, and then ask whether or not it is "well known" that it is a work of fiction. In the year 200 CE, do we know, for sure, that the Greek documents, ostensibly written by "Paul/Saul" or "John" or "Luke skywalker" or "Matthew" or "Mark", circulating by hand copying, were presented as works of genuine belief, rather than as simple morality plays about a group of characters whose native language was Aramaic?

At this same time, i.e. 200 CE, the research of Aristarchus documenting, defining, and explaining heliocentrism, was half a millenium old, and yet only a tiny handful of Greeks reproduced copies of his precious manuscripts. The same could be said for contributions by Eratosthenes and Archimedes.

How do we know, today, what the attitude was, back then, regarding the conflicting claims of so many erudite persons? Who would believe Aristarchus rather than Aristotle and Plato, both of whom had written, opposing the claims of Aristarchus, in support of the theory of Geocentrism? It is easy for us, in our arm chair, to state with authority this or that, it is quite another story to procure the evidence needed to justify claims of how the folks living back then believed, or acted. We have a dearth of evidence, and a bounty of conjecture.

Joseph Smith? Hey, what about all the early 20th century crackpots selling cocaine mixed with alcohol and ginger as medicine. Today we call it Coca Cola. USA has a history, a long tradition, of supporting crack pots like Joseph Smith. And I don't refer to crack cocaine or to marijuana here.

Harry Bosch

Why do you believe that the bible is not a work of fiction, but the Koran is? Are you trying to say that since the bible claims that it is true - ergo it must be true? Well, don't the writers of the Koran state that it is true?

Jedi Mind Trick

Did I say that the Koran is a work of fiction? :huh:

Don't make the mistake that you think you know my beliefs such that you can use standard skeptical procedure on me.

Hint: I happen to think that Mohammad and the Quran got a few things right. Allah is just as much God as Yahweh or Siva or Vishnu or Mazda or Zeus in my book.

arricchio

Ummm.....question. :constern01:

How can you be certain that the so-called "apostle Paul" isn't on the list of deceivers who would come after Jesus, right along with Joseph Smith? For that matter, how can you be certain that everything after the gospels wasn't written by deceivers? That's assuming the gospels themselves weren't written by deceivers. And no fair quoting the New Testament to try and prove that the New Testament is telling the truth, because you can't prove that it is.

Here's were some outside evidence would help. With a little outside evidence we'd able to determine who the New Testament writers really were and that what they are telling us is the truth. So I don't think that a little outside evidence is bad thing. I just think it's a shame that there isn't any.

Wooster

I agree, they are all made up entities.

That was what you meant, correct?

lpetrich

The Koran goes even further than that. One part of it challenges Koran skeptics to produce a sura (chapter) for it like the existing ones:
The Sura Like It site contains several such would-be imitation suras.

JEST2ASK

:notworthy:

Excellant post which only begins to highlight the real problem (IMO). When for example you have evidence that many of the writtings were not orginally written in the form(s) we see today. The best example of this is the ending(s) to Mark.

Of course the writtings of early "Church" fathers is cited as attesting to the validity / integrity of the Gospels, and we can certainly trust them.

OLDMAN

Did someone mention the Gnostic gospels?

Joan of Bark

Many people who've read The DaVinci Code (and who hasn't?) believe much of the fiction in it to be true, even though it was clearly labelled a novel. If this novel were copied by hand in a less media-saturated and illiterate era there would undoubtedly be millions of people who would accept the whole thing as factual after a few decades.

Vinnie

All of the ones I read do precisely this or are you getting at a narrow definition of historian that excluded New Testament and historical Jesus scholars?


Vinnie