Steve Weiss

A story that is not true, that does not report the facts and events correctly is fiction, no matter what the intent. The fact that someone repeats hearsay does not make it credible; it just removes it one step further from the possibility of authenticity. Now I know that Judeo-Christians as well as Muslims are rather attached to their miraculous stories that any relatively intelligent ten year-old would find as believable as a Batman comic, but emotional attachment and wishful thinking do not counterbalance the incredible nature of the nonsense contained in the OT and NT. The impossible is impossible no matter who wrote it down and no matter how many swear by it. Elephants don't fly, and anyone who says that they do is either mentally deficient or deceitful.

Malachi151

This is semantics. The issue is intentionally false or not. Many non-fiction books contain factual errors, but they aren't put into the fiction section of the library because of it. If there are many errors, then hopefully they are simply removed, but they aren't put on the fiction shelves.

Steve Weiss

It is important to identify what one is dealing with before one deals with it. One should not take fiction too seriously because exaggeration, fantasy, and nonsense does not deserve serious attention. Stories of miraculous events are fictional as are the characters in the biblical stories. Furthermore, when an author is unknown there is even less credibilty for the work because this "witness" cannot be cross-examined. I know that Judeo-Christians as well as Muslims are attached to their myths and legends because it puffs up their importance, but the credibility of these stories is totally lacking. I have repeatedly asked for just one example of a factual story in the Old Testament, and no one has produced one because there are none. The greatest story ever told is just that, a story without any reference to the facts. A joke is a joke; it may be insightful, witty, clever, and ironic and may even teach a lesson, but one should be honest and identify it as a joke.

Steve Weiss

When an entire work is made-up, with fictional characters and unknown authors, there is no alternative than to classify it as a fiction. If one seriously wants to treat the bible as non-fiction, then the fictional stories should be separted from the non-fictional ones. In the case of the OT and NT, the entire work is without validation, and an honest classification is as fiction.

Malachi151

Well, I agree that Mark was written as fiction, so that's no big deal to me, but I think that at least Luke was written by someone who thought they were writing real history.

Zeichman

Phenomenal methodology if it ever existed.

Malachi151

To get back to the OP, I've given this some thought and come up with this basic view:

1) The traditional Christian story is that there was a pre-existing Christ concept, then this person Jesus came along and fulfilled the pre-existing notions of what Christ was supposed to do.

2) We have the secularized Jesus concept, which basically ignores "Christ" and says that there was some Jesus person who was a revolutionary and person who did all of these new things to create a following and new religion.

3) We have the Jesus Myth theor(IES):

JM A) Which says that that there was a pre-existing Christ concept, and that there was some Jesus who came along and was little known in his time but had a small band of followers who then shoe-horned Jesus into the pre-existing Christ myth.

JM B) Which says that there was a pre-existing Christ concept, and that this concept took on a life of its own through mystery religions or some similar cult practices.

As I see it, this is why JM, either A or B is superior to the traditional secular view, because the traditional secular view does away with Christ and focuses on "the man", but really JM, either A or B, is closer to position 1, the traditional Christian view, than position 2 is. I would say, also that JM B is the closest to position 1. JM B and the traditional Christian view are the two views that are most similar to one another and share the most ideas in common.

No Robots

Some need to deny the man, Christ, and whether this denial is accomplished through divinization or mythification is immaterial. Christ's spiritual anarchism is something from which many feel the need to protect themselves, and so mythicists are generally more comfortable with Ratzinger than with, say, Schweitzer. We can see a parallel in this meeting of opposites with the many communists who, out of need for external authority, eagerly joined the Nazis.

spin

Worse, as I pointed out. How do you know that this statement about every work being fictional is fictional or not?


spin

spin

On what grounds do you agree that Mark was written as fiction? I think it's fairly evidence that the writer(s) collected usually small pre-existent materials and arranged them. There are sequences that are repeated (such as those which follow the two feedings), stuff order for dramatical impact (such as the fig tree), certain overriding views (the ineptness of the disciples, the magical nature of events), but do any of these indicate that the writer(s) of Mark were doing more than giving order to pre-existent stuff?


spin