dog-on

Well Abe, if you cannot understand my question, I suppose that explains a lot. However, I think you actually do understand it and, for whatever reason, prefer to obfuscate.

ApostateAbe

I don't understand your question. I am just so stupid that you shouldn't even bother with me. I will do you a service now and put you on my ignore list, so I won't lead you into any more of my obfuscating lines of dialogue.

dog-on

How is doing so any different then your usual responses, again, in reality?

Vorkosigan

Of course it is a work of fiction. The author of Mark created it from scratch based on the OT and Paul.

ApostateAbe

That would follow one of the patterns of religious myth (inspired by previous religious myths), not the patterns of fiction (written to entertain).

dog-on

In reality, fiction written for religious purposes versus fiction written for entertainment purposes is fiction none the less...

Doug Shaver

Quite a bit of fiction is written at least as much for enlightenment or education (in the author's perception, of course) as for entertainment. Witness Ayn Rand's novels, or a substantial fraction of science fiction.

ApostateAbe

Right. Some fiction stories are even inspired by religious myths. Do you think that the gospel of Mark may have been written as like a fictional novel?

Vorkosigan

Yes. Have you read Cueva's The Myths of Fiction (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

andrewcriddle

One interesting part of Cueva's book is that it dates the earliest surviving complete Greek novels to the 2nd century CE.

This probably has implications for the relevance of the novels to the NT, (at least for those who date the canonical Gospels to the 1st century CE).

Andrew Criddle