Toto

We had an old thread on this general topic. The question of whether Jesus existed makes sense in our Enlightenment way of thinking, where claimed historical personages either existed on earth or were fantasy of some sort. Modern day Christians who have absorbed a degree of rationalism feel threatened by the idea that Jesus might not have existed on earth.

For the ancients who believed in the supernatural, the most effective attack on Christianity would not have been to say that Jesus didn't exist on earth, since even Christians thought that he was supernatural. The most effective attack was to say that Jesus was a mere mortal, born illegitimately, the leader of a failed messianic movement, who could not be the Messiah because he did not fulfill the prophecies. But note that there are no records of any critic of Christianity in the first century, and we primarily know about later critics of Christianity through reading Christians' attacks on them.

In fact, the only people in the ancient world claiming that Jesus didn't exist on earth (in some form) were various heretical Christians who thought that Jesus descended as a spirit from heaven in his 30th year and only appeared to exist on earth. (I am oversimplifying this, of course.) When orthodox Christians argued against the Docetists, they did not produce physical evidence that Jesus had been a real man, but they did argue from scripture about the nature of the Savior.

EarlDoherty

The point is, the Gospels cannot be taken in isolation. That has been the prime error of New Testament scholarship. Everything is interpreted according to the Gospels. They are only one small portion of the entire early Christian record (and derived from the first one written, which is highly suspicious in itself), and must be evaluated in the light of that entire record. What the "case seems to be" for the Gospels must be affected by what the case seems to be in the rest of the record. If there is no independent historical material in the Gospels (which there isn't) which would lead us to evaluate them as based on history remembered, then there is good reason to examine them from the point of view of them being entirely fiction. Such an examination does in fact lead to that conclusion. Just because they might "sound" like history, or might (only theoretically) be based on some unfathomable and unreachable historical background (supported by a lot of wishful thinking), cannot trump the conclusion which is pointed to by the entirety of the record.

And (which I am sure you already know by your carefull reading of my books), Paul is more than silent on the HJ. He leaves no room for him, he (and other epistle writers) excludes such a thing in a lot of what he says.

Thus the entirety of that record, plus what we find and do not find in the Gospels themselves, constitutes the evidence that the Gospels are fiction. Or, if you like, are in all probability fiction. We do not start from the position that "Jesus did not exist." Again, having read my books, you ought to know that.

By the way, when can we expect your review of "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man"? Can't wait to sink my teeth into that!

Earl Doherty

Toto

Here you are again trying to subtly (or not so subtly) trying to shift the burden of proof. Why should the default be that the gospels were anything other than fiction? We know what ancient histories looked like. They might have included supernatural elements or invented speeches, but they were not anonymous, undated strings of anecdotes, with no indication of sources or different points of view, or any indication of how the writer learned what he claims.

It is quite safe to say that there is no evidence that the gospels are not fiction.

GakuseiDon

I haven't read this book myself, "What are the Gospels?: a comparison with Graeco-Roman biography" (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Richard A. Burridge, but I have read summaries. Burridge analyses a number of ancient works, and believes that the Gospels fall into the category of "bioi", ancient biographies. From here:

What are some of the aspects of an Ancient Bioi:

1. It centered on a particular person and sought to present an adequate characterization of that person. The biography would include information about other persons and groups of people, but the major focus of the work would be on central character. The goal of the ancient biographer was often hortatory or exhortational. Burridge says, “Ancient Bioi was a flexible genre having strong relationships with history, encomium and rhetoric, moral philosophy and the concern for character.”

... The goal of ancient bioi was to create a lasting impression on the reader...

... In an ancient bioi, the author’s in goal was not to recount all the historic events of the person’s life. The goal was to reveal who the person was through a portrait of words and deeds...

... The tendency by apply modern historiographical expectations to the gospels makes it difficult to recognize ancient conventions and genre traits that are used in gospels. Ben Witherington sums up the problem: “ Works of ancient history or biography should be judged by their own conventions.” (6) Compared to modern historiography, ancients were much less concerned about:

• Chronological precision
• Exhaustive or compressive accounts
• Value-free commentary
• Ascribing all events to natural causes –ancient authors did not hesitate to mention supernatural events in their narratives of historical events.
• The avoidance of rhetorical devices and effects...

If it is a category of allegorical fiction, do we have any other examples from that time to compare against?

The problem is that if you take that route (the Gospels were "a category of fiction") then you need to explain why no-one questioned the Gospels as historical. Was it a well-known category? Then wouldn't people have assumed that it was fiction? No doubt people can mistake works of fiction as works of fact, but it isn't a common mistake. There are comic books based on the lives of real people, but we understand the genre to be generally about fiction. If there were a known category of fiction similar to the Gospels back then, I would be surprised that someone didn't question their basis.

But if Burridge is correct -- that the Gospels fall into the category of bioi -- then people would have assumed that Jesus was historical. That is, the Gospels were written to give the impression that there had been a historical Jesus. Again, this is possible, but the starting position is still that the Gospels fall into the category of bioi, which was used for people who were thought to have existed. That is, they weren't written as known fictions, or in such a way that people would think that they were fictional.

You wrote that the Gospels are "in the same form as the biographies written for gods, which are necessarily pure fiction". Can you name any such biographies, that were written for a god known not to exist? That is, weren't those biographies about someone assumed to have existed?

Okay. So are you saying that the Gospels were a known category of fiction?

I don't disagree, but the question is: was there a known category of allegorical religious myth?

Well... I really doubt that Paul saw Jesus' death and resurrection themselves as metaphorical. Paul's metaphor was: "[spiritual] death, then [spiritual] resurrection", based on the idea that all things have to first die before resurrection can take place. (That Paul and others that lived to see the return of Jesus would not first die, Paul regarded as "a mystery") I would be very interested in someone making an argument that Paul thought there was no actual death and resurrection of Jesus, even a spiritual Jesus.

GakuseiDon

Hi Earl. BTW, I recommend ignoring aa____ -- most of us here do.

Still, I am interested in treating the Gospels in isolation. The Gospels in themselves don't present themselves as being in the category of fiction, as far as I can make out. That is, they do appear to fall into the category of ancient biography, used by others writing around that time when writing about historical figures. So for example, assuming you are correct about a MJ -- and that is now the new consensus -- then the question would naturally arise "why were they presented that way"? (It's not necessarily an argument against the MJ so I'm not expecting an answer, but one of many consequences of re-examining early literature based on that new paradigm)

My question is: Treating the Gospels in isolation, and outside any question of a HJ/MJ (at this time), what would the people back then have made of the Gospels? Would the assumption have been that they were historical, or fiction?

Fair enough, but would they have been recognised as fiction by people back then? Or were they presented as biographies of an actual person? That's the question that interests me here. I know that you write that it is "highly doubtful" that Mark himself "considered his story to be historically true" (page 394), but would we have expected others back then to have thought the same? That is, were they presented in a form that people would have assumed that the work was historical (despite the constant drawing of references from the Old Testament), or would the form have indicated to people that the work was not historical?

I'm about two-thirds of my way through; but then, I haven't had time to work on it much in the last month or so :blush: I still plan to complete it when I can, and will let you know when I do.

But here is a spoiler for those interested in my conclusions in my review of your book:
N/A

GakuseiDon

Mwahahahaha! (raises little finger to mouth) You caught my evil motive again, Toto! I like the Ronald Reagan reference, too.

Actually, I wasn't going for subtly. I'm asking anyone who regards the Gospels as fiction if there is any evidence of that, other than starting from the answer "Jesus didn't exist". If I'm being subtle, I apologise.

I think that there is evidence that the Gospels weren't a form of known fiction at that time, simply because they were treated as works of history, even if some of the prophecies and miracles were questioned, e.g. by Celsus. Burridge's analysis of ancient biographies places the Gospels within that genre, which suggests that, whatever the authors' intentions, they were writing in the same format that was used when writing about other (thought to be) historical figures.

Did people generally confuse the genre of fiction with history back then? There are modern day examples, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Should we have expected that fictional works become regarded as history back then, or would this also be an exception?

If Johnus Doeus back then happened to pick up a copy of the Gospel of Mark at the local news-standus, would he have thought he was reading fiction, or history?

andrewcriddle

I think the Gospels were addressed to people who already held some sort of picture of what Jesus was like, and were intended to persuade their readers into accepting what the authors regarded as a better account of what Jesus was like.

If this sort of rhetorical strategy is to work, the new picture cannot be too radically different from the old one.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

I believe this is the third time I am making this point, and others have made it within this thread as well. I'm not sure if you've simply overlooked this, or just don't believe it:

A "bioi" is not in any sense a biography in the way we use the word "biography".

So the fact that the gospels are categorized as such tells us nothing whatsoever about the historicity of Jesus. I don't see anyone in this thread arguing that the gospels should not be considered "bioi". The point is that this category does not imply a historical Jesus.

It can be a "bioi" and still be allegorical fiction. In regard to examples of allegorical fiction, the Old Testament is filled with it. There was surely no historical Abraham, nor Noah, nor Adam. Those stories are allegorical fiction as well. The gospel writers followed the same formula for Jesus that they were already familiar with from their own Jewish scriptures.

Although the gospels are not called out by name as such, the general category was rampant at the time and it was clearly commonplace for people to confuse fantasy and reality. Lucian lambasted the nonsense of his day in his prologue to "A True Story", which was was itself a parody.

Juststeve

Toto and Earl:

If I understand your responses they were that there are no ancient arguments made that Jesus didn't really exist, and you think you know why. Is that correct?

A slightly different question. When is the earliest you can document anyone making the claim that Jesus was a fictional character?

Steve

spamandham

gJohn does not mention that John baptized Jesus. I'd say we have before us objective proof that these writers were indeed free to omit whatever they wanted. I don't know how this line of argument can continue when we have direct objective proof right in front of us that it's bunk.