spamandham

When you read writings known to be propoganda, do you normally assume the author is also motivated by a desire to accurately record history? That seems rather odd.

Clivedurdle

On time and place (what is that in German?) this story is about God becoming human to save mankind at the time of the emperor gods in the heavenly city.

Are you sure there are not theological reasons for this time line and geography?

And looking at Mark by itself without the long ending, what is the point of it again?

spamandham

Neither do I, nor did I suggest any such thing.

Amaleq13

Yes, you've made it clear that the post made no relevant statement. No use in belaboring the point, eh?

spamandham

We can certainly come up with plausible theological reasons for the story to take place when and where it did. We can also come up with plausible theological motives for the story itself.

For example, if Christianity really did begin after the fall of the temple, there would be a theological reason to invent a type of replacement theology and place it in a time period prior to the fall of the temple. This might achieve several goals.

First, it could be claimed "the temple was allowed to be destroyed because god's covenant no longer depended on it". Second, putting the story in the early 1st century would place it outside the range of falsifiability, while still maintaining a sense of urgency. Thirdly, the 70 weeks of Daniel may have been seen as a prophecy to be fulfilled in the mid 1st century. By placing the story at that timeframe, it could be claimed that the Messiah had shown up afterall. Fourthly, I don't think we can ignore the Pisces symbolism rampant in early Christianity, combined with the dawn of the age of Pisces happening in the 1st century as well! It's a perfect storm of theological reasons.

Regarding the content of the story, it's easy to see how much of it could be constructed from a patchwork of OT passages interpreted according to late 1st/early 2nd century culture. I seem to recall Carrier working on demonstrating this?

spamandham

Belaboring what point? :huh:

neilgodfrey

This simply does not hold water, as a few examples I presented quickly remind us. A story that begins with a virgin birth or a man flying up into the sky -- well, we don't even have to say the obvious. Ancient historians like Herodotus and Tacitus were willing to report the miraculous but always with some measure of scepticism. Even Josephus allows for some scepticism on the part of his readers when reporting the miraculous. What historians do we know who ever reported a string of miracles without once blanching in the telling? I have read many but probably not all the ancient historians so am quite prepared to accept there are some. I am willing to compare.

Except in tales of the supernatural and fantasy, we can't. If there was a quick and easy rule for detecting truth from fiction what a different world this would be. We judge verisimilitude by adherence to the laws of human experience. -- The only exception to this rule appear to be believers in canonical religious texts.

How does the use of an setting affect a reader's feeling unless it is telling them this is a "just so" story? I don't see the problem. But to turn that fav old question around here, what other "apparent histories" are there from those times that are designed to use "facts" in a way that that they are not meant to be taken as literal but only to impress with a certain feeling? -- without at the same time telling fiction?? The head begins to spin, but this is the quandry we end up with when we (as postmodernists etc) try to stretch notions of "truth" to "myths" etc.

He used it as a vehicle to teach philosophy, just like the gospels are used to teach theology.

Amaleq13

The one you've made clear as I just said.

Stop playing obtuse. It is boring and wasting space.

Amaleq13

You'll have to explain how because I don't see it. Assuming the non-canonical stories contain no accurate history simply begs the question about the canonical stories.

Yes, those claims certainly aren't historical. It still seems rather simplistic to chuck the entire story out the window on that basis.

Even when he believes it (eg stories from Scripture, Vespasian)?

Who is talking about "historians"? Not me. Do you have to be an historian to have some accurate history in your story?

But isn't the question whether what we have is entirely fantasy?

That's my position but you seem to be disagreeing and tossing out the entire collection because their main character has magical powers.

No, it is the use of the dramatic imagery of an earthquake.

This is a straw man not my position.

How did giving his story the appearance of history help him?

neilgodfrey

The examples I cited demonstrate that a setting in historical time and place does not of itself present a prima facie case for presuming the historicity or otherwise of a story. Fiction is just as often set in historical times and places, ancient fiction included.

Edited addition: I forgot to address your second sentence here but thanks to spamandham a couple of posts below this has been responded to.


I'd worry about someone trusting any book that clearly told a good number of tall tales, especially not knowing anything about who the author was, what his audience or when or where he wrote. What other anonymous writing with such a high ratio of the miraculous presented without any whisper of doubt does anyone accept as historical? That's not scholarship. It's faith.


As far as I recall, yep. They make statements indicating they are aware that many of their readers may not believe what they say. But that was just an aside and not central to my point.

Call them what you will. The point is the same. But I sense the thrust of the argument is changing now when you slip in the "some" here. No-one has disputed "some" accurate history. I believe it is quite accurate that Pilate was governor around 30's. I don't think it was accurate that there were lots of Pharisees in Galilee then, but have no reason to doubt that the odd one dropped in for a visit.


It seems like we are slipping in to an all black vs all white argument now. That's not what I was understanding at the outset. I was responding to your statement:
For a complete fiction to be doctored up with an appearance of history presumes by definition, at least to my understanding, that there is "some accurate history".


That's certainly one of the reasons I "toss it out" as you put it. Take out the miracles and the nonhuman nature of the character and you have no story left worth recording. A man goes around teaching principles everyone already knows are a good idea. What's the point? The essence of the story IS theology -- the whole story is about the role of the miraculous and the divine. It is not history. It is theology, or some might call it myth.

I have grounds for rejecting the historicity of the story, which I have explained. On what grounds do you think we should presume some sort of historicity? Because the narrative it is set in a real place in a real time?

What are you saying exactly? That the ancients knew it was a metaphor and that they felt moved by what they believed to be its poetic power? What was the actual event they were believing behind all this poetry?


No, it was not a straw man, since I was raising that as another aspect of my argument, not yours. And I expected the style of my intro to it indicated I was playing a devils advocate a little anyway.

(But having said that, I did have some recollection at the same time of an earlier question of yours which probably prompted me to make the point in the first place:

)

That's surely obvious. Or maybe I'm not sure what you are suggesting here.

You'll have to ask Cicero and the others who recognized it as such. Or are you asking how moderns know? But either I am missing your point or you are missing mine when I introduced this example, sorry.