Ben C Smith

Exactly so.

It seems clear to me, both at first glance and upon closer inspection (Talbert, et alii), that Mark falls under the general rubric of ancient biography. All this does, however, is to give us the attitude of the writer and the intended readers; like Romulus, Jesus may yet be mythical; like Augustus, he may yet be historical.

I keep getting the distinct impression on this board that (A) Mark is being classed in the genre or mode of fiction and (B) this classification is being employed in order to make judgments on individual details in the gospel.

That is vastly different from what I perceive, for example, you to be doing. I think you recognize that ancient biographies often contained fictionalizations. Therefore, finding a fictional episode in a text does not give us the genre; nor does determining the genre of the text give us the historicity or nonhistoricity of every episode therein.

I personally find the category fiction very unhelpful when it comes to ancient texts; I wish it were not bandied about so. What does it mean? Fiction like that which we find in the Greek novels? Fiction like that which we find in ancient biographies of nonexistent founders? Fiction like that which we find in the biographies of Augustus and Alexander? Fiction like that which we find in the assertions of countless posters on this board???

The topic was genre, so I presumed you were referencing Vines with respect to genre.

Thanks.

Ben.

aa5874

This finding by you that Mark fits the general classification of ancient biography is extremely odd and is unrealistic.

Upon close inspection, the author of Mark did not really write a biography of Jesus, the Son of God. This author wrote about incredible events in which a character called Jesus played the lead role.

There is no account of the birth of Jesus, no account of his immediate family or genealogy, no account of his physical features, no mention of his age at any event or any account of his childhood and his activities upto his meeting with John the Baptist.

There is not a single detailed date of any of the events of Jesus. For example, the crucifixion of Jesus is not detailed at all. It would have been extremely beneficial and would augment credibilty if the day, month and year was given for this event by the author.

Upon close inspection, the author of Mark appears not have any personal vital information about Jesus before meeting John the Baptist.

Mark 1.1-2[ That is all Mark wrote of Jesus, the son of God, upto his baptism by John the Baptist.

Upon close examination, it would appear the author of Mark did not even have any information about the immediate family of Jesus, son of God.

Mark 6.3 The author asked questions but did not provide answers.

Mark 3.32-33, Again, the author does not say that Mary is the mother of Jesus.

And Mark 16.6 Mark never gave the exact date of this awesome event.

The author of Mark wrote fundamentally implausible and incredible anecdotes of the Jesus the Son of God, but definitely not a biography.

An example of biographies of antiquity are Suetonius' "The life of the twelve Caesars" where Suetonius gives vital information and specific dates of the birth and death, chilhood, physical description, medical history, educational background, political achievements, marital status and even hobbies.

Suetonius the Life of Augustus 5 Suetonius the Life of Agustus 8 These passages by Suetonius are of a biographical genre, the passages found in Mark appear to be devoid of any genre.

In the very first sentence in "Romulus" by Plutarch, this author alerts the reader that his information is questionable.

"Romulus" by Plutarch Plutarch then proceeds to give some of the varied versions of the origin of Rome and then introduces Romulus, and these versions reflected the opinions of people at the time of writing.

However, the author of Mark never admitted he wrote fiction or that there were other versions of his Jesus, son of God, but his stories are fundamentally incredible and it is not known if anyone had heard of his Jesus, son of God.

Mark does NOT fit the genre of Pultarch's "Romulus "or Suetonius' "The Life of Augustus"

Upon close inspection, Mark appears to be fiction based propaganda to promote the false belief that there was a God on earth during the days of Pilate.

Minimalist

If you are asking me to lay odds I'd say 1 in a 100. For a trial to have gone down the way the gospels claim it did....1 in a 1000.



Note the actions of Procurator Albinus and contrast them with the alleged actions of Praefect Pilate.

spamandham

That was Talbert's conclusion. I'd be interested in any more recent work done on the subject of genre, if you're aware of any.

mens_sana

Agreed. I think Pilate told his troops to "keep the peace." If rabble-rousers got picked up and crucified, who cared? Human rights activists hadn't been invented yet and the troops would only be in trouble if they roped in a Roman citizen or a "Tobiad." Almost every point beyond the basic arrest and crucifixion is later dramatic embellishment.

But let's say that the arrest and crucifixion were planned by the authorities, possibly because of rumored sedition. The authorities would have considered the crucifixion itself sufficient to end the problem, for no effort was made to roundup the followers who all fled the scene.

Is my scenario too simple?