spamandham

I don't see how this follows. Having now read Talbert, per your recommendation, I see no implication that the genre indicates they were real people. Labeling them 'bios' doesn't rule out the possibility they were real people, but neither does it imply it.

Ben C Smith

Within the genre of bios, especially the bios of an allegedly recent personage, what function would these references to sons serve, IYO? It is not the genre by itself that would make the determination; it is genre plus the (unusual) nature of the reference.

Ben.

spamandham

The only thing we can reasonably conclude, is that the writer expected his audience to be familiar with those people (unless there's some kind of word play going on perhaps). To conclude they were historical is to take an unwarranted leap.

Consider the two genealogies. Both use references from the Gospel story and trace backward to individuals that are well known to the audience, but almost certainly not historical.

Consider Lazarus. Is he not also presented in a way that suggests the audience was familiar with him? Yet he's almost certainly not historical.

Ben C Smith

How is the author expecting the readers to be familiar with these people in a bios compatible with the readers knowing that these people were completely fictional?

What is initially at stake in this question of genre is not whether the individual in question is historical, but rather whether the writer and reader thought he (or she) was.

I think readers of Matthew and Luke would think that the genealogy was generally genuine. I doubt, unless ancient genealogies as a whole were expected to be so (and I am willing to entertain such notions, since genealogies are a sub-genre of their own), they thought that the names were pure inventions.

In what way?

It would probably go too far astray to pursue this part. Let us stick with how you think Lazarus is presented as someone already known to the readers. And let me ask: Do you think the readers knew he was fictional? That is the principal genre question.

Ben.

aa5874

Your claim is a fallacy.

You cannot determine if gMark is fiction or if anyone else other than the author knew of Mary Magdalene or the other Marys before as legendary figures.

You simply have no knowledge whatsoever of the author or his expectations.

Ben C Smith

It is a joy to converse with Robert (spamandham) concerning matters on which we respectfully, albeit sometimes vehemently, disagree.

It is a nuisance to be constantly interrupted in such conversation by repetitious assertions that I could almost predict in close paraphrase.

Ben.

aa5874

On a discussion board it is a fallacy to claim that you are interrupted, you have been challenged.

You made a claim that the author of Mark expected his readers to know the sons of Mary, I have challenged your claim. Your claim just cannot be verified to be true.

As I have pointed out, repeatedly, you do not even know who wrote gMark, you simply have no idea what the author expected of his audience and you certainly do not know if gMark was deliberate fiction written for the sole purpose of duping the readers.


And I will continue to challenge any of your post that are clearly erroneous.

spamandham

*All* we can say on this point, without more knowledge, is that there seems to be an expectation on the part of the author, that the audience was familiar with those characters; be they historical, fictional, legendary, mythical, or whatever else.

Is it possible that these were well known fictional characters from other stories long since lost? Sure, that's a possibility, but not one I can see any reason to presuppose.

Assuming Talbert has not overlooked something serious, such as a novel genre altogether, then I think he's properly identified the genres.

But consider that Talbert classified Mark as what he calls a 'type B' biography. This was a biography written in terms of the myth of the immortals, and it's purpose was to portray a true *image* of Jesus. This genre is not what you and I would call a modern biography. If we were to give it a modern label, I think it would be much closer to 'fan fiction' than to biography.

There need not have been a shred of historical accuracy to Mark at all, as that was not its purpose.

The character is used in one story living in the same land of myth as Abraham and Moses. In the other, he interacts with Jesus. Some might argue these are two different characters, but I find that dubious. I'm not trying to make a strong point here, which is why I asked it as a question previously.

{in regards to Lazarus}
I would not presume that, nor would I expect the author or readers to make the same kind of distinction between 'fiction' and 'nonfiction' that you and I make. This was not the age of reason.

Ben C Smith

Within the genre of (heroic) bios, I think there would be a general expectation on the part of readers that the people mentioned as participating in the events were historical. There may be exceptions to this; there may have been certain kinds of fictional elements within bioi of which not all readers would expected historical truth. (Perhaps genealogies were one of these elements; I have other candidates in mind as well, and certainly embedded genres like parables would not be historical by nature.) But I would have to be shown which such element Mary and Simon and kin belong to before claiming that the fictional option was viable.

Legend or myth is viable. The Jesus story could possibly have grown in such a way that James, Joses, Simon, and Rufus are either (A) historical but with nonhistorical roots in the story (via, in this case, the fabrication of purely legendary parents or purely legendary actions on their part) or (B) themselves nonhistorical, just another part of the legend. A decisive factor for me is the time involved. The events are portrayed as happening in circa 30. If Mark was written in the middle of century II, then yes, perhaps such a legend accumulated (given that the middle of century II is not even truly contemporary with the children of actors in the events of 30) and the ancient references that the Marcan readership would have relied upon for knowledge of these sons have been lost to us. But, if Mark was written, say, in about 70, then Mark is probably contemporary with at least some of these sons, and I doubt a purely legendary explanation is as viable in this case as an historical one.

Yes, it is possible, perhaps even in a recent bios, though I cannot see opting for this choice without further investigation of the evidence.

I agree with that. (But do you have a page reference or a quote for the type B part? I have copies of only some pages of the book, and would like to recall the discussion on that. Thanks.)

I disagree that fan fiction is our closest analogy.

I also have to part company here, at least potentially, depending partly on the date of Mark.

Whoa, there. Lots of historical characters are described in stories (and this is a parable!) that are patently nonhistorical, even mythical. Hermann Goering has appeared in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I am undecided on whether the parable in Luke inspired the story in John, or vice versa, or both drew on a common fund of tradition in very different ways. But yes, I agree that the Lazarus is the same character, as it were, in each case.

Ben.

Amaleq13

That is why the Baby Jesus invented the Ignore function.