Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 01-16-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Do you know what the word fiction means?

That question suggests you still don't understand the nature of the fundamental error in your approach.

The question is, do you know what that concept meant in the first couple centuries of the Common Era and how it was applied to understanding stories? It would appear you have not bothered to find out but simply continue to assume what is true today held true two thousand years ago. Calling such an approach "naive" is putting it kindly. When such an approach is sustained despite having people more knowledgeable of the relevant data suggesting it is mistaken, we have ventured into "willful ignorance" territory.

It is utterly incomprehensible that any intelligent person would consider the way early Common Era authors thought about "fiction" and "non-fiction" or, more directly relevant, whether they differentiated between the two all the time to be "irrelevant" to understanding whether a given early Common Era author thought his work was fiction. :banghead:

Willful ignorance is putting it kindly.

Quote:

A 3yr old knows when they are making-it-up...

Unless you imagine a 3 year-old wrote the Gospels, that is hardly relevant.

Did a 1st century author or reader consider a story written about a real man but told entirely through older stories to be fiction? You'll never know because you won't bother to do the necessary research. You'll just keep blindly assuming that they thought the same way we do despite the fact that people who are familiar with the relevant material have told you that this is simply not the case.

And you'll keep making the same utterly foolish assertion.

The fact is that ancient historians sometimes described what they considered to be historical events and historical figures with fictional stories that were often quite familiar to their readers.

From this we can conclude that nothing with regard to historicity can be assumed from the inclusion of such stories in the description of any events or individuals.

"This morning, I drank orange juice."

Fact or fiction?

aa5874 · 01-16-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

[

How does one best present the ideas of this oriental cult to people? Through religious drama of course. Hardly anyone could read and write.

So, how come people of antiquity who could read and write claimed that it was not a play, but that the events as written of Jesus was true, even today?

dog-on · 01-16-2009, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

[

How does one best present the ideas of this oriental cult to people? Through religious drama of course. Hardly anyone could read and write.

So, how come people of antiquity who could read and write claimed that it was not a play, but that the events as written of Jesus was true, even today?

Who, in antiquity, said it wasn't a play?

Regarding G Mark, where in that text does the author claim that the story is true?

bacht · 01-16-2009, 07:31 AM

Michael Turton has some thoughts about the play idea in his commentary on Mark:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark09.html#9X

"...Another problem solved by viewing Mark as something to be performed is the lack of lines relating to movements of individuals. For example, the writer does not tell us exactly how Jesus was crucified. If the Gospel was meant to be performed, the audience would have that problem solved visually. Similarly, the writer never narrates Judas sneaking off in Mk 14:1-11 to betray Jesus. Nor does he provide any lines relating to Judas leaving during the Last Supper, though Judas had to have left, because he shows up at Gethsemane at the head of a mob to arrest Jesus, and no one on Jesus' side expresses any surprise to see Judas there. In a performance the audience would be able to see Judas leave, and perhaps offstage, assemble a mob to arrest Jesus. In Mark 3:13 Jesus calls "those he desired" but from where? The audience, seeing a group of actors, would see some thread their way out of the group. or perhaps out of the audience itself. It also helps to inform the meaning of "immediately" in Mark: Jesus debouches from a boat and immediately people surround him. Difficult to imagine in reality, but easy to show on a stage or set. One could even read Jesus' remark in Mark 7:6 that the Pharisees were hypocrites as a sly pun, for the term hypocrite originally meant "stage actor."

Seeing the Gospel of Mark as a performed text may also explain some other aspects of the story. For example, the writer's vague geography and lack of geographical description and detail may reflect the expectation that those items would be presented visually. All the writer had to do was give some general idea of the location of incidents: a synagogue, a lonely place, the other side, in the house, and so on. The set crew would do the rest. Further, none of Jesus' miracles represent actions that would have been physically difficult or materially complicated and expensive to portray on stage. Jesus doesn't fly, move mountains, cast lightning, or transform one object into another. Instead, the blind see, the lame walk, demons leave their hosts, and a fig tree wilts. Clearly, the Gospel of Mark could easily be staged by a non-professional cast and crew on short notice, with a minimum of sets and equipment..."

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

"This morning, I drank orange juice."

Fact or fiction?

More irrelevance indicating you don't understand the flaw in your approach?

I don't know and I don't care.

dog-on · 01-16-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

"This morning, I drank orange juice."

Fact or fiction?

More irrelevance indicating you don't understand the flaw in your approach?

I don't know and I don't care.

You see, I do know the answer.

Just as any author, any time and any where, would.

Try this.

"This morning, as I was driving to work, I encountered a rather annoying traffic jam. Much to my delight, a giant, winged, dragon swooped down from the sky and vaporized most of the traffic in front of me with his breath, allowing me to arrive at the office on time."

Fact or fiction?

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You see, I do know the answer.

Just as any author, any time and any where, would.

That you think this is relevant is just more evidence that you don't get it.

Nobody is suggesting that Mark was unaware of whether he wrote fiction or not. :banghead:

You need to reread this thread. You seem to have lost track of the point.

Quote:

Try this.

"This morning, as I was driving to work, I encountered a rather annoying traffic jam. Much to my delight, a giant, winged, dragon swooped down from the sky and vaporized most of the traffic in front of me with his breath, allowing me to arrive at the office on time."

Fact or fiction?

You may have been in a traffic jam but you made up the dragon.

Why do you think this is relevant or helpful?

dog-on · 01-16-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You see, I do know the answer.

Just as any author, any time and any where, would.

That you think this is relevant is just more evidence that you don't get it.

Nobody is suggesting that Mark was unaware of whether he wrote fiction or not. :banghead:

You need to reread this thread. You seem to have lost track of the point.

Strange, that is exactly what I have been saying. Perhaps one of us misunderstood the other's meaning...

dog-on · 01-16-2009, 08:44 AM

So the author of Mark has written a story.

His story contains many plainly fictitious elements.

The author never indicates that anything he has included in the story is based on any actual event or that the story is in any way historical.

What then, is the prima facie indication, as to history or fiction, left us the reader, by the author.

Amaleq13 · 01-16-2009, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Strange, that is exactly what I have been saying. Perhaps one of us misunderstood the other's meaning...

If you would answer my questions as to the relevance of your latest posts, we might find out.

The questions you should be exploring are these:

How did authors and readers understand "fiction" and "non-fiction" in the first centuries of the Common Era?

Did the inclusion of fictional events or retold familiar stories indicate the entire story was fiction to such readers?

Now, how are your last two posts relevant to these question?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2009, 07:31 AM	#154
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	Michael Turton has some thoughts about the play idea in his commentary on Mark: http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark09.html#9X "...Another problem solved by viewing Mark as something to be performed is the lack of lines relating to movements of individuals. For example, the writer does not tell us exactly how Jesus was crucified. If the Gospel was meant to be performed, the audience would have that problem solved visually. Similarly, the writer never narrates Judas sneaking off in Mk 14:1-11 to betray Jesus. Nor does he provide any lines relating to Judas leaving during the Last Supper, though Judas had to have left, because he shows up at Gethsemane at the head of a mob to arrest Jesus, and no one on Jesus' side expresses any surprise to see Judas there. In a performance the audience would be able to see Judas leave, and perhaps offstage, assemble a mob to arrest Jesus. In Mark 3:13 Jesus calls "those he desired" but from where? The audience, seeing a group of actors, would see some thread their way out of the group. or perhaps out of the audience itself. It also helps to inform the meaning of "immediately" in Mark: Jesus debouches from a boat and immediately people surround him. Difficult to imagine in reality, but easy to show on a stage or set. One could even read Jesus' remark in Mark 7:6 that the Pharisees were hypocrites as a sly pun, for the term hypocrite originally meant "stage actor." Seeing the Gospel of Mark as a performed text may also explain some other aspects of the story. For example, the writer's vague geography and lack of geographical description and detail may reflect the expectation that those items would be presented visually. All the writer had to do was give some general idea of the location of incidents: a synagogue, a lonely place, the other side, in the house, and so on. The set crew would do the rest. Further, none of Jesus' miracles represent actions that would have been physically difficult or materially complicated and expensive to portray on stage. Jesus doesn't fly, move mountains, cast lightning, or transform one object into another. Instead, the blind see, the lame walk, demons leave their hosts, and a fig tree wilts. Clearly, the Gospel of Mark could easily be staged by a non-professional cast and crew on short notice, with a minimum of sets and equipment..."

01-16-2009, 08:44 AM	#159
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	So the author of Mark has written a story. His story contains many plainly fictitious elements. The author never indicates that anything he has included in the story is based on any actual event or that the story is in any way historical. What then, is the prima facie indication, as to history or fiction, left us the reader, by the author.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.