jjramsey

So you are saying that the Gospels are in the genre of epic poetry? Seriously, I'd say that Luke 1:1-4 makes it clear that the Gospel of Luke certainly is in the genre of history, even if its content is inaccurate.

So Alexander the Great and Apollonius of Tyana didn't exist? Again, seriously, having legends build up around real historical personages was fairly commonplace as well.

This is simply wrong. This is a justification for treating the Gospels as unreliable, not for concluding that they are in the genre of fiction rather than examples of badly done works in the genre of history.

Amaleq13

Isn't how the author wants his story to appear and how the story should be understood two different concepts? And isn't focusing on how a revised version of an original story is presented begging the question of the nature of the original?

It is justification for treating the Gospels as myths that are, at least, partially unreliable for history. Whether they are entirely unreliable myths is another question.

mikem

And one of the ways we determine this is to take account of what the authors themselves state explicitly. If the explicit claim is that we have a historical account, we have to have good reason for rejecting that claim at the outset.

The claim itself means what it says. Whether it is justified ia another matter. My post went on to explain why.

All myths contain elements of the supernatural. However because an account contains an element of the supernatural does not entail that it belongs to that genre. It is not a matter of either/or. My post did state that one has to take into account the literary conventions of the time, and as JRamsay points out, there are other contemporaneous historical accounts that contain supernatural elements.

I also pointed out that the gospels have a history. Supernatural elements can accrue to otherwise pedestrian historical accounts. Containing supernatural elements does not make the narrative as a whole mythological. As I explained in my earlier post, analysis of the texts reveals redactions that show how the gospel authors have redacted their sources to create a divine central figure. It is because they contain traces of the earlier material that scholars are able to trace this development. For example, Mark has the story of the rich young man and Jesus. (Chapter 10 v 17 et.seq) The young man says "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus replies "Why do you call me good? No one is good burt God alone". Both Matthew and Luke have the same story. Luke retains the wording of the initial exchange, Matthew does not (Matthew 19:16 et.seq., Lke18:18 et.seq). Clearly Mark's Jesus bluntly denying the status of deity does not fit in with Matthew's more divine Jesus (see Matthew 20:28) Mythological narratives do not as a rule show any textual evolution of this kind. This in my view is a significant and major difference between myth and gospel, compared with which the similarities between the two are secondary.

If the writers of the gospels were creating a myth, why would the gospels show this kind of change? Why go to the bother of creating basically two stories, one about a very human "rabbi" with racist tendencies, ("why cast the children's bread to the dogs"), experienced tiredness, hunger, and could be wrong about the end of the world being imminent, and then create another story on top of that about a superhuman being who could work miracles and read people's minds? And then when one had done that, modify the earlier story to bring it into harmony with the later one? Fiction doesn't work like that, myth doesn't work like that. What works like that is a story about a real individual who came to be viewed in a certain way.
The gospels are pretty much what one would expect them to be if the history of early Christianity is any guide.

There are indeed similarites between the gospel stories and some myths. However, as pointed out above, the differences in terms of the nature of the material are significant and profound.

I have responded to this above. A narrative can be historical, and contain fictional or mythical elements. If the gospels were PROVABLY fictional in their entirety then to cite them as evidence for historicity is circular. However this is far from proven. Account must be taken of the gospel material at it's different stages, not just the finished product.

Sophistry eh? You give me too much credit. I'm just a plain straightforward Northern bloke. I'm interested in getting at the truth, and I'm just a little too old for sophistry. If my arguments are wrong, prove them wrong.

jjramsey

Of course, but the concepts are related. If I am trying to mine information from the author, it helps if I know what the author is trying to convey, so I can better read between the lines.

If you are trying to say that Luke 1:1-4 was tacked on, then I say that you have insufficient evidence.

I think using the term "myth" is misleading. The Gospels are a mix of stories, some of which look like myth or legends (or "tall tales" might be a better term), while others look like they could have been misinterpretations of mundane events, like Mark 9:14-29, and in the case of the Passion accounts, the bare outline is plausible, that is, Jesus makes trouble, and the Jewish authorities tell Pilate that he is trouble and Pilate takes care of the problem. However, the details can easily be taken with a grain of salt. The Gospels basically look on their face like heavily embellished history, which is why the HJ position is largely the default.

Amaleq13

No, I'm referring to the original version of the story (ie the one attributed to Mark) and I'm suggesting it is begging the question to focus on a revision of that story rather than the original when attempting to identify the genre of the story.

Nothing you wrote after this statement appears to render the definition you know I'm using any less appropriate let alone "misleading". That some people have difficulty differentiating between recognizing the stories as Christian myths and claiming that Jesus is entirely fictional does not make the former "misleading". Again, I cannot control nor am I responsible for the mistaken assumptions and/or faulty interpretations of others.

The Gospels basically look on their face like the myths of a particular religion placed in a specific historical context and, because of that context, it is entirely reasonable to suspect from the outset that they are based on a historical figure.

Amaleq13

For the benefit of those who are not already aware of the meaning of "myth":

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth)

andrewcriddle

The earliest sources for Achilles Beowulf and Lancelot are all several centuries after the supposed dates of the characters concerned.

This makes their historical existence problematic apart from questions of genre. (FWIW IMO Lancelot certainly never existed Achilles probably never existed, but there probably was a historical Beowulf though most of the stories about him are pure fiction.)

This time gap does not exist for the canonical sources about Jesus which date from less than a century after the alleged events (In some cases much less than a century).

On the genre issue, do the fantastic elements in the narratives about Apollonius of Tyana imply that there was no historical Apollonius ?

(FWIW my answer would be no.)

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not saying that the mythological nature of the Gospels are proof that Jesus cannot be historical, I'm saying that the fictional/mythological elements prevent the Gospels from being sufficient evidence in themselves that Jesus was historical. Perhaps I'm fighting for a subtle point here but I'm not arguing that Jesus wasn't historical, I'm just saying you can't prove it from the Gospels alone.

James Madison

Diogenes the Cynic:

I understand the point you are making and it is a very strong one. How much "deference" should be given the gospels when accepting as true their claims someone existed?

I think this is a very fair question. I also agree it is important to discern whether or not the work is fiction or non-fiction. I also concur with your point just because the author of the work makes the statement their prose is not "fiction" does not mean it is not fiction. I also agree there needs to be some objective and independent means of looking at a text and ascertaining whether or not it is likely fiction non-fiction.

It does seems intuitive to dismiss a text as fiction when it is ladened with fantastic accounts which defies our understanding of reality as we perceive it through our senses. This we do with other texts, such as Lord of the Rings, other Greek mythologies, Roman myths, and so forth.

However, the bible is at a minimum a mixture of fact and fiction. The bible accurately recalls some historical facts. It correctly mentions Pontius Pilate, Caiphas as a high priest, towns which did exist, some practices, customs, and rituals which existed at the time (such as the Roman practice of crucifixion and the condemned carrying their own cross) and so forth.

So I think this mixture of fact and what appears to be fiction complicates how much deference we can give the bible about its claims so and so existed.

jjramsey

And I'd say that your reasoning, while understandable, has a crucial flaw, which is that you can have a body of documents that obviously contain legendary accounts, but whose contents are not consistent with them being pure fiction either. It is arguable that this scenario is the case with the Gospels, and I would say that this scenario definitely applies to the Gospels and the NT Epistles put together. Mythicists have had a couple centuries to explain how the NT could have arisen without an HJ, and the best they have had to show for it are elaborate and strained speculative schemes. The HJers at least have Jesus the apocalyptic prophet.