Chris Weimer

No, this is not about Atwill's or Carotta's theories. This is about Shakespeare.

Michael Turton had mentioned that Mark was supposed to be performed, or something to that extent. Granted, this is why we see so many fictional elements in the Gospel of Mark.

But what about Julius Caesar? What would future historians think of Julius Caesar if they lost the ancient historical record, most of the modern historical research, and only had Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. We could possibly correlate Julius Caesar's life in Shakespeare with other preserved authors. What would they do when they didn't align? Would they ultimately attribute the character of the play to a real historical figure? Would they be able to show that many of the allusions found certain authors actually reference material that predate the play?

As I see it, the Gospel of Mark, and thus Luke and Matthew and might as well toss in John also, are fiction. Mark does not read like a biography account. Ever read Satyricon? Bingo. Mark was hellenized popular fiction, regardless of its theological stance. (Not saying that Mark made it all up, but fictionalized what he received.)

But why are so many eager to attribute it all to Mark, especially when elements cannot be found in Mark's story appear abundantly elsewhere - such as Paul's ideas, which take material from pre-Mark, and parts of Matthew, Luke, and John, certainly Thomas, Q, apocryphal works, etc...

Trashing the gospels and claiming thus that Jesus does not exist is no sound modus operandi. However, a comprehensive view of all the relevant material is needed for a complete analysis.

What bothers me, then, is when certain people will argue ad infinitum on points which are doubly refuted if they bothered to look at the bigger picture. Someone pointed me to a Tertullian work, yet obviously hadn't even bothered to read the rest of Tertullian. I'm not saying we should all be specialists when dealing with this, but if one's not even going to bother to put in the workload, there's no reason for their repetitive baseless assaults.

Toto

Are you trying to say that Matthew or Luke had some other source of biographical details about a historical Jesus (ignoring the sayings, which do not prove a HJ)? What evidence is there of this?

It seems that Luke and Matthew took Mark and added a clearly ficitonal geneology, plus sayings, plus clearly ficitonal post-resurrection events. What more do you see?

andrewcriddle

Meier and others have argued that the sayings source corroborate some of the Markan narrative. (Eg the sayings source contains sayings claiming that the speaker has performed miracles.)

Andrew Criddle

Ignostic Morgan

Look what a flawed source the Christian NeW Fables are! "Misquoting Jesus " shows that scribes change passages . The accounts are based on flawed oral tradition about a magician who had a dubious morality[Sending persons to hell is immoral .She who turns the other cheek might end up in a hospital.]. Was Caesar' s morals any better? At least,we do not have to have either person as hero.Neither is real to me as a champion of reason.

Chris Weimer

Wow, talk about a lost thread!

Hey, Andrew,

I have not heard this before. Do you have an online source somewhere? Perhaps a link to a discussion which brings these points up? Thanks,

Chris

andrewcriddle

I'm not aware of an online source.

The most thorough presentation of this in a book seems to be Meier's 'A Marginal Jew' volume II

Relevant passages from the putative saying source are
Matthew 11:2-6/Luke 7:18-23
Matthew 11:20-24/Luke 10:13-15
Matthew 12:27-28/Luke 11:19-20

Andrew Criddle

Tharmas

Perhaps Julius Caesar is not such a great example. For one thing, whereas Mark is writing about a personage from the previous generation, Shakespeare is going back over fifty generations in time.

For another thing, Shakespeare kills off Caesar less than half way through. Most of his play is about power politics and psychological manipulation.

Shakespeare’s heroes work no miracles (there’s a soothe-seer that everyone ignores). There’s no miracle buy-in. You’re not required to Believe. The play’s events are “real” insofar as they accurately portray human nature. In that’s sense it’s a pretty down to earth and even cynical look at humanity.

If you didn’t know about Caesar from other sources the question of historicity would be of interest mostly to graduate students. You’d want to know how Shakespeare got the idea. We know he “borrowed” most of his plot and story ideas from other writers and chroniclers. Why would this one be any different?

But maybe I didn't get the question you were asking.