aa5874

That is a reasonable statement.

I think you have given me an excellelnt analogy that bolsters my position. You have already acknowledged that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character written by Arthur Conan Doyle, but you have not mentioned that the Sherlock Holmes books were exteremly popular. This popularity is the essential ingredient.

So, other authors, knowing the popularity of Sherlock Homes novels have fabricated other characters but have called them 'Sherlock Holmes' to maintain interest, popularity and book sales. These authors are 'riding the wave of success' of the Sherlock Holmes phenomena.

These recent authors can fabricate any scenario provided they maintain the name Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes is a believable character, books about him are widely read and Sherlock Holmes' name means 'money in the bank'.

Now, Jesus Christ fits the Sherlock Holmes scenario. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are using the name of a character that is believable. They write different genealogies, chronology and biographies but they maintain the name Jesus Christ. The Jewish nation is waiting for the Christ and these unknown authors have found him. The OT, they claim, contains prophecies of Jesus Christ, and the name Jesus is sold and people buy 'hook, line and sinker'. And like the recent Sherlock Holmes authors, the authors of the Gospels found Jesus after he was dead.

DaBuster

This is precisely where we disagree. The other authors of Holmes stories have not “fabricated other characters” –- they each have taken the existing character of Holmes and built upon it. Post-Doyle writers do not simply rely on the name Sherlock Holmes, they also rely on Doyle’s characterization of Holmes as being a turn-of-the-century English detective famous for using logic and astute observation to solve cases. A writer who deviates too far from this characterization does so at his own peril, as the further from the “truth” about Holmes the story gets, the more likely that the story will be dismissed by fans of Holmes. For example, if one were to take the collected wisdom of DaBuster from the IIDB forum, change the name to Sherlock Holmes, and then publish it (admittedly this would make for a very short book), true Holmes cognoscenti would quickly expose the fraud and refuse to accept it into the Holmes canon. It is Doyle’s original characterization of Sherlock Holmes –- in other words, his character -- that is the common thread in stories about Holmes, not simply the name.

The Bishop

My criterion for describing a work as "fiction" would involve the intentions of the authors when they wrote it.

Let us take the case of a conspiracy theory such as 9/11. Some conspiracy theorist selectively takes the various depositions of different witnesses and writes a book (or creates a web page or a YouTube video). And the conclusion of the book is that the World Trade Center was brought down by demolition explosives, implicating the US Government in the atrocity.

Now, the events of 9/11 are not fictional. The people who are cited as witnesses are not fictional, neither did they not say the things that the book says they said. Neither is anybody necessarily lying. But the conclusions drawn and the story being told is entirely erroneous and imaginary.

Regardless of my disinclination to take a single word of such a book seriously, I would not classify it as "fiction", because other than the speculation as to what "really" took place, there is not one scrap of fiction in it.

Of course, in the Gospels there are elements of fiction, but I don't believe that those fictional elements were arrived at by the authors of the Gospels themselves.

There is no point in close examination of A Scandal In Bohemia to determine who the mysterious English mistress of the King of Bohemia was in real life, because that story was written entirely as a fiction with no purpose other than to entertain. There is no point in a close reading of Harry Potter to determine the means to really cast an arvada cadabra spell. But no matter how much we disbelieve in virgin births, raising from the dead, walking on water and a host of other supernatural events, there is sufficient reason to read the book as if it were describing at the very least something the authors were told about by others, by witnesses. Even by raising the matter in this forum, you treat the Gospels differently to how you would treat or consider a real work of fiction like Sherlock Holmes.

Post-Gospel accounts that are clearly divorced from eyewitness testimony (such as the infamous "infancy gospels") can certainly be regarded as fiction.

aa5874

I think you put too much weight to the word character, you must remember Sherlock Holmes is fictitious. Fiction is the key word we should be concerned with.
Fictitious characters only have names, they really have no characters of their own, it's the author that creates the character. Arthur Conan Doyle created the Sherlock Holmes and this detective character becomes popular among readers. Now, if I wrote and published a fiction based detective story, and called my character Sherlock Holmes at the same time Doyle's version is being published, the character of Sherlock Holmes cannot be resolved unless by litigation.

I have read some Sherlock Holmes, years ago, but now I can only recall the name Sherlock Holmes and that the character was a detective, if some-one else had wriitten a detective story and had put the name Sherlock Holmes on the cover, at that time, I probably would have read it, thinking it was a genuine version.

It is for these reasons why copywright and piracy laws have been enacted. The name of a product or a service is of primary importance. Sometimes persons cannot even use their own names on their own products for fear of lawsuits.

But, back to the OP, you have agreed the Gospels are fictitious, but I think you have missed an important point. The point is that there were many persons who were claming that they were the Christ and not one person. The Gospels have written about that situation of so called false Christs.

There is also no prophecy that the Christ should die on a cross in the entire OT, so the crucifixion story was fabricated by the authors.

The story of the Gospels have too much 'holes' to be taken seriously, the numerous problems of each unknown author destroy their credibilty. It cannot be shown that one person used the name Jesus when the authors themselves describe him differently.

DaBuster

I have agreed there are fictitious elements in the Gospels. I have not, as you seem to imply, agreed that the Gospels are complete fiction. Also, I continue to find it odd that, despite your contention that the gospels are total fiction, you keep citing the “situation of so called false Christs” from the gospels to back up your contention that the gospels refer to different people -– i.e. you are using what you perceive to be a fictional statement to support your conclusion.


No, you don’t give nearly enough weight to character -- a name disassociated from character is meaningless. Sherlock Holmes, Jesus, Napoleon, the leading character in your favorite TV show, all have names that you associate with a collection of identifying characteristics that together can be thought of as “character”. Once this association is made, the name itself serves to represent the abstract concept of the character himself. Without this association between name and character, it would be well nigh impossible to even have a discussion of the kind that we are having right now, since the names “Jesus” or “Holmes” would have no meaning.

Whether a name belongs to a real or fictitious character makes absolutely no difference at all -– we can discuss Sherlock Holmes or Napoleon in exactly the same way. The only difference when discussing these two characters is that one identifying characteristics of Holmes is that he is fictional, while one of Napoleon’s identifying characteristics is that he is real. But note that even here, since I have no personal, first-hand knowledge of Napoleon, the “reality” of Napoleon is solely based on what I have read or have been told by others – in other words, the way in which I have come to understand the meaning of “Holmes” and “Napoleon” is identical. Both names, meaningless in and of themselves, can only be understood by their association with a character.

Finally getting back to your OP, I understand, though do NOT agree with, your position that Jesus is a fictional character. What I continue to find completely unsupportable is your conclusion that the gospels refer to “different characters.” Regardless of whether the gospels’ Jesus is a myth or the gospels are based on the life of a real, historical Jesus, the similarities in all of the gospels (yes, even John) in their depiction of the ministry and death of the character they all name “Jesus” indicate that the gospel authors all believed that they were writing about the same character.

aa5874

Let me try again, If I wrote a fictitious detective story using the name Sherlock Holmes and, at the same time, another author writes a fictitous detective story using the name Sherlock Holmes, there would be two different fictitious characters using the same name and only upon reading both versions will the differences be realized.

The Gospels, namely Matthew and Luke, use the same name, Jesus, as their main character, but upon reading both versions, the genealogy, chronology and biography are different. I have used the differences of information to conclude the characters are different. I cannot use my imagination, I must use the information before me.

There are significant differences between fictional and real characters. The creator of the fictional character controls that character, and can manipulate that character to do whatever the creator wishes. As you have written already, the Sherlock Holmes post Doyle is different and is only established because the name was retained. If the post-Doyle authors used a different name with the same story line, there would have been no reference to Sherlock Holmes.

Real characters are associated with certain events and these events cannot be manipulated. If a real person was born before World War 2, he cannot be born after WW2. If he lived in California when he was a child, he cannot still be living in New York during the same time, even if the other person has the same name. These are indications that there are two different persons, living in two different locations, born at different times with the same name.


There is a major difference, 'Holmes' is presented as fiction in advance, 'Napoleon' is presented as historic. You can make your own determination about 'Napoleon's' historicity, based on information presented.

Let me show you. George Bush was born before World War 2. George Bush was born after World War 2. George was called the President of the USA. George Bush drove Saddam out of Kuwait and George drove Saddam out of power in Iraq.

Jesus was born before Herod died. Jesus was born during a census of Cyrenius. Jesus lived in Egypt as a child, Jesus lived in Nazareth as a child.

I find it very difficult to understand how you know what the authors believe. Do you know the authors' motives? Using the same name could also indicate the use of erroneous information to make the readers believe that they were writing about the same character. As you should be aware, the authors of the Gospels had enough information available to them for these authors to realise that the Gospels were fictitious. Yet the fictitious material was still released.

aa5874

Can you point out to me which parts of the Gospels gives you reason to think the authors are describing something told by witnesses?

It appears to me that Matthew, Mark and Luke copied either from one another or a different unknown source. The unknown author of Matthew also used numerous OT scriptures to support his story, which he could have taken by himself without any witnesses.
The life of Jesus is recorded differently in the book called John, how did John's witnesses see a different Jesus?

The witnesses theory poses other problems, for example, with regard to the 'Sermon on the Mount' starting in Matthew ch5, we have hundreds of direct words purported to be said by Jesus. If the witnesses got other events woefully wrong, how credible is the 'Sermon on the Mount'. Is it possible that witnesses could remember, years after Jesus' death, thousands of direct, continous words of Jesus? Even, I, myself cannot remember my own words within minutes, let alone years. I find that these direct words of Jesus to be suspect and highly unlikely to be his, but likely to be from the authors themselves.

DaBuster

If you’ve ever read a historical novel, you know that fictional characters can just as well be “associated with certain events and these events cannot be manipulated” as real ones can. Also, the authors of historical novels often change or embellish the “real” history of a historical character to meet the needs of their stories. So, based on your criteria for fictional and real characters, how do you tell the difference between real characters and fictional characters in historical fiction?

For example, here in the States there is a sub-genre of historical novels that speculate on what would happen if the south had won the American Civil War. In these novels, such well known (to those of us in the States) historical characters as General Robert E. Lee are made to behave in ways that are not part of the historical record. Does this make a R.E.Lee a fictional character? Of course not. If a historical novel portrays Lee winning the battle of Gettysburg, whereas history tells us that he lost, is the R.E.Lee portrayed in this novel a different character than the historical Lee? Again, the answer is no -- the authors have simply modified the history of the one and only R.E.Lee to service the plot of their stories.

As far as the gospels are concerned, you stated the following when citing differences in the gospels to support your conclusion that the authors were writing about “different characters”:

Yet further on in the same post, you also said the following:

I must admit that I overlooked this later quote the first time I read that post, because it seems to contradict your “different characters” argument. If the authors of the gospels copied from an unknown source, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that they each based their Jesus on the one described in this alleged “unknown source”? In fact, if you assume a common source, then the differences between the gospels can easily be explained as being the result of the authors of the gospels taking an existing character named Jesus from this unknown source and manipulating his history in the same manner as modern day historical novelists.

Boro Nut

About the point you go onto solid foods.

Boro Nut

EssEff

Your GB would be a fictitious character & the book would be fiction. The other book is also fiction. It would be similar to Law & Order's "Ripped from the Headlines" manner of writing.

The beginning, middle and end.