JoeWallack

What Amount of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence for Fiction is Needed to Conclude a Markan Story is Likely Fiction?


JW:
This Thread is a follow-up to my Legendary Thread:

Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?

where it was determined that the evidential category of Authority (the Authority of FRDB since according to FRDB the Authority of FRDB is a higher source than the supposed authority of Bible scholarship) supports "Mark's" narrative of Jesus being baptized by JtB as likely Fiction.

While using "Mark's" Jesus' baptism story as a case study I would like to now expand the discussion to determining criteria for measuring the quality and quantity of fiction within a Biblical story and possible conclusions on the fiction/history of a story as a whole based on the related evidence of these criteria.

Background

Evolution of Christian responses to questioning historicity of Markan story =

1. St. Francis response (for most of its history)

2. Martin Luther's pope makes huge mistake of allowing men to discuss (argue) why Catholic doctrine is correct. Neglected to read memo by holy spirit that once men (not women) were allowed to question why they would inevitably proceed to if. Response downgraded to persecution/discrimination.

3. Modern times. Separation of Church & State. Skeptics push from "if" to "not" using exactly the same criteria used in any discipline outside of religion. Apologist response is truce on Impossible claims. Retreat to claim that Christian Bible is based on witness testimony which means Possible claims are likely history. Implication that if witnesses properly reported possible claims, than if you accept that the Impossible is Possible, the witnesses also properly reported Impossible claims.

Christian Bible scholarship generally looks one Way to evaluate historicity, creating criteria to determine historicity but largely ignoring criteria to determine Fiction. This Thread will develop criteria to determine Fiction and consider at what point it is fair to conclude that a Markan story is "Fiction".

Regarding the Markan Jesus' baptism story, a related problem is what exactly is your definition of "Fiction" in describing a story. An Apologist may describe the story as "Historical" because they think JtB did baptize Jesus and this minimum is enough no matter the likely/possible fiction of the other narrative within the story. A Skeptic may describe the story as "Fiction" because even if they also think JtB did baptize Jesus, they think the majority of the story is likely Fiction.

For starters I throw out the following criteria, in order of importance, for determining the extent of Fiction:

1) Impossible claims

2) Contradictions

3) Parallels to non-historical sources

4) Thematic motivation

5) Contrivance/Implausibility

6) Necessity of tying to other stories

Contra to Christian Bible scholarship, due to Age and the lack of any quality witness, the criteria for Fiction potentially can determine a conclusion of Fiction regardless of the Criteria for Historicity. Along those lines I have constructed a poll here to vote on at what point you think it is proper to conclude "likely fiction".

As Christ Walker said in the classic King of New York, "Enjoy!" (look it up).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Horatio Parker

In "Deconstructing Jesus", Robert Price speculates that the JtB story was included in order to appeal to JtB followers. There's no more proof of that than anything else, but I find it an interesting idea.

I voted:

A majority of the narrative is Impossible/Improbable/Paralleled/Contrived

Juststeve

I would answer none of the above. The most we are entitled to say about a narrative that contains impossible elements is that some of the elements are impossible. Most of us who think the gospel Jesus was based on an historic figure also think that many of the qualities attributed to him are impossible or at least improbable.

Steve

Toto

There is the possibility that there was a historical Jesus, but that Mark's gospel is fictional, like a historical novel written about a genuinely historical character. I think a lot of modern liberal scholarship is tending towards this view.

tanya

Let's call this theory, outlined by Toto, as "A".

There is also the possibility that there was a fictional Jesus, and that Mark's gospel is fictional, like a fictional novel written about a genuinely fictional character.

Let's call this theory "B".

If we then make two columns, A, and B, representing these two contrasting views, which passages from Mark best illustrate the pertinence of theory A, and which support theory B?

Mark 1:1 Byzantine Majority text
αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

and:

Mark 1:1 Greek Study Bible
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησου Χριστοῦ.

If the two extant versions of the same text have such different accounts, how can we call it "history"?
"son of God" is a non-trivial addition to the text, (or subtraction from it, depending on your point of view.)

Toto

I don't think that anything in the text will tell you whether A or B is correct. The text is entirely fictional in either case, but in A there is a historical inspiration for the story.

tanya

Thanks for your comment, very much appreciated.

I realize that the text will not identify "whether A or B is correct". I seek to learn which specific passages lend credence to the notion that Jesus was an historical figure, as you had suggested, above.

I cited Mark 1:1, because I think it worthwhile to ask forum members to comment on the (huge?) discrepancy between the two versions of the same passage...
In particular, does this dichotomy suggest an historical figure, or a mythical figure? That is to write, apart from the meaning associated with the text, "son of god", which by definition is fictional, but, simply based upon the extant record being of two minds here: does not this fact--that we possess two different versions of the same passage--suggest a work of fiction, rather than history? It is not as though one version indicated that Jesus had brown hair, and the other version made no mention of his hair color.

Juststeve

Toto:

The reason we call historical novels historical is because they are not entirely fiction. They mix history with fiction.

When Mark says that Jesus came from Nazareth to be baptized by John there is no reason to regard that as fictional unless you have a prior commitment to the view that there was no Jesus to act in history. There is no reason to suppose a baptism by John had to be fictional. It is nothing like a risen corpse or any of the other prodigies we read about in the gospels. Its just a mundane event in the life of a first century guy made much of by later embellishment.

Steve

aa5874

When you PRESUME gMark is historical it is because you have a PRIOR commitment to HJ of Nazareth.

The Jesus of gMark was a PHANTOM and Upon examining the baptism in gMark the event is total FICTION EXACTLY as it is described.

There was NO Holy Ghost Bird and NO Voice from heaven.

Mark 1:9-13 - The baptism story in gMark is PRIMA FACIE fiction and it is WITHOUT any corroboration.

Toto

All of the events of the novel may be fictional, with a historical backdrop.

At least one aspect of the baptism is fictional - the holy spirit descending, etc. There are historicists who think that the entire event is fictional. See the discussion here. Certainly the figure of John the Baptist appears to be a deliberate reference to Elijah, and the whole event is full of symbolism and references to the Hebrew Scriptures.

It wasn't mundane. John the Baptist got to play the Elijah role and pronounce Jesus' coming greatness. The Holy Spirit descended on Jesus and announced that he was the son of god.

I think you mean that the simple act of John baptizing Jesus could be a mundane act. You are assuming that this simple act underlay the layers of legendary development. Is there any reason to assume that there was a historical baptism if your only evidence is a highly legendary account written some time after the event? I can't see any good reason.

And this argument is not based on mythicism. There could have been a historical Jesus, who died, and after a generation or so, Mark wrote a story about him being baptized by John because he wanted to make John the precursor to Jesus. There are scholars who have spent more time examining this than you or I, who take this position.