Toto

If it is not clear, I did read at least part of Vines' work, enough to tell me that Vines has no contribution to make on the question of the historicity of Mark because he starts out assuming historicity.

Have you read Vines? Do you agree with that?

If you can't get past the evangelical part, just forget that I mentioned that elephant sitting in the living room and go on.

I am really sincerely interested in what point you think that Vines makes that adds to the discussion here.

spamandham

Scanning back through the intro, I don't see anything to support what I said before. I guess I'm just confused.

Before I invest the time in reading his entire book, is it the most up to date work on the subject of Gospel genre?

Ben C Smith

I have not read Vines.

It is not clear to me what historicity has directly to do with genre. I think, for example, that the biographies of Romulus and of Augustus are both biographies; yet I think the latter is historical while the former is not.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

The most up to date? Dunno. It is pretty recent.

There is also Burridge, whom I quoted.

There are other scholars, of course, who still hold, with Bultmann and company, to the sui generis model. My concern is that your statements seem to recognize those who hold to this model (albeit not by name, AFAICT) but neglect those who do not. You once, IIRC, even stated baldly that there existed no evidence for the genre of Mark. Apparently without having read the various monographs on the subject of evidence for the genre of Mark.

Ben.

Toto

I agree that historicity does not directly relate to genre, but I would argue that it is not related at all. Why is it that genre is such an issue?

If we all agree on that, I will split out this sub-discussion on genre.

Ben C Smith

Genre becomes an issue as soon as someone uses Mark is fiction as an argument against the historicity of the details in Mark. This is the exchange that started the discussion:

Spam appeared to be using the unique genre argument to support the fictiveness Malachi claimed for basically every line in Mark.

IOW, Malachi appropriately (not necessarily correctly) analyzed each detail one by one for historicity; but spam tried to trump this analysis with genre considerations.

Ben.

spamandham

IMHO, genre is important to the discussion if the genre is argued to be some form of fiction rather than some form of biography. I'm not making that argument, and I'm not seeing anyone else in this thread make it either, so maybe you're right that it's an irrelevant aside.

Malachi151

Solitary Man

Yes, we don't think that Romulus is historical, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't framed as such by the ancients. You hit it directly with the Mark is fiction attitude. However, I wasn't even commenting on historicity when I mentioned Vines. I was commenting on genre, and that will figure in historicity appropriately with the sub-conversation between Ben C. Smith and spamandham.

patcleaver

Christian apologists attempt to rationalize all apparent contradictions and impossibilities and other evidence of fiction. The method consists of inventing some excuse to show that some apparent contradiction or impossibility or other indication of fiction is actually possible. The apologist then claims that if its possible then its not irrational to believe that its true. There are several basic problems with the approach:

First, things that are obviously fiction, like 1001 Arabian nights, or Harry Potter, or the Hindu Vedas, or the Koran, or the story of Joseph Smith can be rationalized in exactly the same way to show that they are possible. You can find a way to rationalize that its possible that almost any lie that has ever been told could be true. Almost anything is possible, and if you accept magic, then anything at all is possible.

Second, most of the rationalizations of apologists simply show that an explanation is possible, but fail to show that the explanation is likely. In fact, almost all the explanations of apologists are extremely unlikely. The best response to almost any of these apologist rationalizations is that the argument is simply unreasonable because its unlikely.

Third, it is irrational to believe that something is true, if it's unlikely that its true. The fact that its possible that all the available evidence that I have, about the relative positions of Florida and Main, could be wrong is not sufficient for it to be rational, in view of all the available evidence, to believe that Main is south of Florida. In fact it is irrational to have confidence in the truth of any proposition that is not in proportion to the weight of evidence for and against that proposition that you are aware of. This type of intentional irrationality is evil and is the root of all evil because it has played a part in every human atrocity ever committed.

According to Harry Potter apologists, Harry Potter is real history, and Joanne Rowling only claims its fiction because she is under the imperious curse.

1. We know that the NT is fiction (i.e. its not a reliable source of facts) because of all the internal evidence (see http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm) as well as all the external evidence, such as: Christianity is just another pagan cult in view of what we know about all the other pagan cults in the Roman Empire; the books of the NT are just fictional hagiographies in view of the hundreds of similar fictional hagiographies that we are aware of.
2. Demon possession does not cause diseases.
3. Jesus lies about going to the festival, and not teaching in secret.
4. Jesus' family think he is crazy.
5. Jesus failed to fulfill his prophesy that he would be dead for 3 days and 3 nights (only one day and two nights)
6. Jesus failed to fulfill his prophesy that he would return before those standing before him died.
7. The authors of the gospels could not have witnessed the conversations between Mary and the angel or Joseph and the angel, or the conversation between Hared and the wise men, or the conversation between Mary and Jesus when she found him at the Temple, or the conversation between Jesus and Satan, or what Jesus said in prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, or the conversation between Jesus and Pilot, or the trial at the Sanhedrin, or lots of other things described in the gospels.
8. Sin does not cause diseases.
9. Jesus was wrong that the story of Jonah was true.
10. Jesus was wrong that the story of Moses was true.
11. There is no mountain high enough to see all the kingdoms in the world.
12. You can not follow a star because, in the Northern Hemisphere, all the other stars circle the North star.
13. There is no cliff near Nazareth that Jesus could be threatened to be thrown off.
14. There is no evidence of a town that was called Nazareth before the 3rd century.
15. The dead sea is too small to have big waves.
16. Fisherman do not follow some unknown itinerant preacher when he asks them to follow.
17. The magic tricks of Jesus are not original, but are just the same magic tricks commonly reported in the Roman Empire.
18. The sayings of Jesus are not original, but were previously said by Jewish sages or stoic Greek philosophers or others.
19. The actions of Jesus are not original, but are derived from the OT stories.
20. The way we tell whether a story is true or false is whether it makes sense and the Gospel narrative does not make sense.
21. There were other divine pagan heroes who had magical births.
22. There were other divine pagan heroes who performed Jesus' magic tricks.
23. There were other divine pagan heroes who magically triumphed over horrible suffering humiliations.
24. Jesus did not fulfill any of the real prophesies in the OT about the messiah.
25. The things that Christian apologists claim are prophesies that Jesus fulfilled are not really prophesies of the messiah but just out of context statements that sound prophetic.
26. stories that contain actual magic are always fiction.
27. stories about the activities of gods are always fiction.
28. Why are their hints that some of the magic tricks Jesus performs in the gospels are fake e.g. asking the crowd to lie down before multiplying the loves and fishes.