Ben C Smith

So which heroic biographical dramas written in Rome during the first century would you compare (any form of) Mark to?

Ben.

Toto

The first option is just silly. I think that Mark was writing theology, or hyper-reality. I don't think his contemporaries misread him; it was only later that Christians or others tried to treat Mark as non-fictional - not because they were "fooled", but because they needed to for theological reasons.

Very little, and you have to put heavy emphasis on potential.

I don't see any evidence that eyewitnesses were consulted, other than Josephus. I think the real history was too painful.

The Jesus Project has not considered the argument that Jesus might have existed because a later follower wrote a theological tract that follows the literary form of a biography. Perhaps you could get them to consider it; I don't see enough substance to the argument to spend any time on it.

aa5874

You are therefore confirming that Jesus, the son of God, as written in Mark, is fiction and not biography.

dog-on

Wasn't Seneca purported to have written these types of works? Only one I ever read, (years ago), was called 'Octavia', I believe.

Ben C Smith

Okay.

Do you have an example of a contemporary who read him the way you think he intended to be read?

If Mark did not intend to fool his contemporaries, then he must have included, even if only incidentally, something in his gospel that would let them know what he was about. What do you think that something was (or those somethings were)? What were his readers supposed to read in his text that would tell them that this text, while in the form of a biography, did not actually contain real biographical information about a real figure? What in his presentation would signal to his peers that he was writing only theology, not biography in any true sense?

I am not asking for evidence that eyewitnesses were or were not consulted. I am asking for evidence for your assertion that the war itself made it unlikely any were.

If you are intending the real history is too painful comment to be such evidence, then I am buffaloed. WWII was every bit as painful. Were no eyewitnesses consulted for the histories that have been written about it?

The Jesus Project is just getting underway. I expect the nature of the gospels will come up at some point. If it does not, then I think the Project will have neglected its duty.

Well, your judgment on the matter is clear, at any rate, and I think it is either misguided or premature. Surely the existence of a text in the form of a biography about a purportedly fairly recent character has to figure into discussions of the historicity of that figure. Not to do so would be negligent. Can you imagine discussing the historicity of Apollonius without talking about Philostratus? I for one can not.

But, as I mentioned before, my purpose here is not to argue for the historicity of Jesus based on a biography written about him; rather, it is to question certain kinds of reconstructions, mainly those which rely on Mark being intentional fiction, whether Jesus be historical or not. (One thing at a time, I say; understand your sources before believing or disbelieving their testimony.)

This question was skipped: Do you know of any other ancient biographies written within a couple hundred years of their purported events that are historically worthless even to the extent that their subjects (probably) did not even exist?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

It is doubtful, I think, that Seneca wrote the Octavia. But, just in case the genre fits anyway, it is available in English translation online. What features does it share, in your judgment, with the gospel of Mark?

Ben.

dog-on

Parts of the Passion, I suppose.

aa5874

Once you classify a text as a biography then it must be implied that it is not historically worthless.

But, the Gospels cannot be classied as biographies unless first they can be shown to be of historical value with respect to Jesus, the son of God.

Essentially, no information about Jesus, the son of God, can be confirmed to be historical, however, many events with respect to the character as found in the Gospels can be shown to be fiction, or implausible.

It therefore cannot be shown that the Gospels are not fiction novels.

Ben C Smith

Which ones?

Ben.

Toto

Thr resurrection, witnessed by three women who ran away and didn't tell anyone, would probably qualify.