Originally Posted by Toto

There is actually a body of literary criticism comparing elements from the gospels to the novels of the time, in particular the story of Chaereas and Callirhoe. These novels have elements like crucifixions of innocent people, empty tombs, etc. But no one claims that the gospels are exactly like those novels.

Dennis McDonald has pointed out the many parallels between Homer and Mark.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I take it by "fiction" you mean purely for the purpose of entertainment? Like, they drank and caroused with some lively gospel reading or something?

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Fiction = not historical


Joseph

Originally Posted by Toto

There is actually a body of literary criticism comparing elements from the gospels to the novels of the time, in particular the story of Chaereas and Callirhoe. These novels have elements like crucifixions of innocent people, empty tombs, etc. But no one claims that the gospels are exactly like those novels.

Dennis McDonald has pointed out the many parallels between Homer and Mark.

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Abe, this is a typical case of scholars (1) imputing to the text information it does not contain (2) and basing their analysis on the assumption of a Historical Kernel.

The usefulness of the Historical Kernel approach is twofold: first, it can never be refuted, because it is an axiom brought to the text rather than a conclusion from the text. It grows or shrinks based on our creativity with the "evidence" of the text. If we can demonstrate that a pericope is created out of the OT, well, perhaps we can say the saying goes back to Jesus. If we can show both saying and structure are derived, we can maintain, faithlike, that something happened. The way the Historical Kernel is used in NT research, 2000 years from now Historical Frodo researchers will use the idea that the Merry was called a Prince of the Halflings while in Minas Tirith to show that Merry was actually a human from a noble house.....

Which brings us to the second point: the Historical Kernel with its built-in assumption that Jesus was a real human person enables us to avoid demonstrating historicity on a pericope by pericope, event by event basis.

Abe's usage here is dead on. Abe, you need to show us that there is some historical basis to this passage, not assume it and then troll through the texts selectively for evidence.

In point of fact nowhere is it stated that Jesus was a disciple of JtB. Indeed, in GMark we have a nearly Dohertian silence, for JtB is mentioned several times, including in a long passage in Mk 6, but Jesus is never presented as having any relationship with him. JtB's disciples are mentioned in Mk 6, but Jesus is not classed with them. Again in Mk 6 the people say Jesus is JtB returned, but any connection between the two is not mentioned. The writer of Mark clearly reveres JtB and is not embarrassed by the Jesus-JtB connection, so there is no reason for him not to have mentioned that Jesus was JtB's follower....

The other reasons to think the Baptism passage contains no history are abundant. On its face it is insane (all the people of Judea and Jerusalem come out to be baptized??). JtB is presented as Elijah. Etc.

It could be that Jesus was JtB's disciple, but there is no evidence for it. It is more likely, as the NT affords evidence (acts 19, for example), that there were followers of JtB who were unaware of JC. It seems more likely that the passage is written to subordinate JtB (and his followers) to JC (and his followers). Especially since one of the oddities of Acts 19 is that it gives the impression that Paul thinks the followers of JtB were Xtians....

Vorkosigan

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, thanks for clearing that up. That is the definition accepted commonly among mythicists. I got the wrong idea since you brought up the field of Literary Criticism.

Originally Posted by JW

Your Argument from Embarrassment is a Literary Criticism argument. If you are looking at Literary Criticism than you also have to look for evidence of fiction (which has been explained to you in detail many times here). The extent of the Impossible/Improbable specifically in the Baptism story and in "Mark" in general is exponentially better evidence for fiction than your Argument from Embarrassment. So only considering Literary Criticism, the better explanation is fiction. You need the supposed External evidence to try and help you here.

Originally Posted by spin

On the Apollos passage in Acts 18:
Actually, it does say that he didn't know Jesus at all before Priscilla and Aquila fixed him up. That is the whole point of the passage. Apollos seems to have known the prophecies and the teaching of John about the way of the lord (remember the citation of "prepare the way of the lord"?). So what he knew about the messiah was what John had taught. He didn't know about the christian messiah, Jesus. He knew nothing about Jesus's teaching of the baptism of the holy spirit, only about John's baptism. That is why Priscilla and Aquila had to take him aside, so that he could teach the way of the lord more accurately. Not just what John taught about the messiah, but about Jesus directly. This allowed him to show that Jesus was the messiah (18:28).

This passage shows the theological debt christianity owed to the spread of the Johannine religion after John's death and shows that there was an alternative messianism in circulation that taught about the coming messiah, that one had to prepare for. It would seem that Priscilla and Aquila took Apollos's preaching of the messiah to come as teaching about Jesus, which would suggest a partial absorption of the Johannine religion into early christianity.