Ben C Smith

In my experience, this (kind of) claim is not unusual on this forum. If the gospels derive some or many, perhaps even most, of their seemingly historical narratives from the Hebrew scriptures (or other ancient sources), then the gospels either contain or are fiction (and there is a big difference between contain and are).

I wish to explore the methodology behind this contention on this thread, and wish to do so by posing the following 3 questions, at least for starters:

1. What kind of discernment goes into the claim that a narrated event has been fabricated on the basis of scripture? How do we determine, for example, whether it is Mark who knew scripture and therefore invented the triumphal entry or it is Jesus who knew scripture and therefore set up the scenario himself? Also, how numerous or dense do the parallels have to be before we judge the pericope a copy? Does a single allusion render the entire pericope suspect? Or can skillful authors use expressions established in great literature in order to convey actual tradition, too?
2. How far does the fiction extend? Say we find that, out of 10 events in a given gospel, 5 are modelled on previous scripture. Do we automatically suspect the other 5 as inventions, too? Do we automatically assume that the other 5 are kosher, as it were? What if the ratio is 9:1 or 1:9 instead? (This goes to the matter of containing fiction or being fiction mentioned above.)
3. What if it could be shown that ancient histories or βιοι (biographies), or other presumably or principally nonfictional works, sometimes consciously modelled events in the lives of their protagonists on earlier literature? What potential bearing would this have on how we read the gospel accounts?

I look forward to any and all relevant and appropriate comments.

Ben.

Toto

I think Michael Turton spent some time on this, and makes a carefully qualified statement that if you can identify fictional or midrash in a gospel, it is not proof that the gospel is fiction, but it diminishes the usefulness of that gospel as a source for history.

If every element in the gospel appears to be derived from previous scripture, as he claims, there is nothing left to use as a basis for a claim for history. But I don't know that there is a clear intermediate point where the work tips from history to fiction.

It appears that some people here (and also in academia) do consider that almost all of the elements in the gospels are fiction, including the trial and the details of the crucifixion, but feel that the crucifixion itself cannot be explained as having a basis in the Hebrew Scriptures, and therefore counts as evidence for historicity. I don't know that anyone has examined this in terms of the probability of finding one historical fact in a largely non-historical work.

Ben C Smith

Of whom are you thinking in academia who reduces the historicity of Mark (or the other gospels) to the crucifixion alone?

Ben.

Toto

It seems to be a common idea among liberal academics that there is little or no history in the gospels (I'm thinking of MacDonald in particular), but that Jesus still existed. Perhaps I am just assuming that they rely on the crucifixion.

Sorry, that's all I have time for now.

patcleaver

Most of the death of Jesus is from Psalm 22, but it does not mention death on the stake.

In order to enhance the Magical Triumph of Jesus as much as possible, the author would have chosen the most horrible method of death that he could think of, that was consistent with his story, and Psalm 22, and that made literary sense.

Hercules was a hero and a son of the God Zeus. Hercules wife Deianeira was tricked into giving Hercules a shirt poisoned with centaur's blood. Hercules put the shirt on and was immediately poisoned and left in horrible pain. When he realized that there was no cure he ordered his servants to make a funeral pyre. Hercules climbed on the pile of wood and ordered his men to set it on fire. Unsurprisingly, they all refused, but that left Hercules in horrible pain and furious that no one would obey him. Then along comes a man named Philoctetes who finally set the pyre on fire. Then - magical surprise - instead of killing Hercules, it burned away the humanity in Hercules, leaving behind only the immortal god. Then, Zeus carried his favorite son up to Mount Olympus.

Dying at the stake made sense to Mark because it was a horrible humiliating death which set up Jesus' magical triumph, and the hands and feet and side could be pierced per Psalm 22.

No Robots

Plato thought along similar lines:

[T]he just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound --will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be impaled: Then he will understand that he ought to seem only, and not to be, just.--Republic II

History is full of examples of gross injustice meted out to the just. There is no need to count the example of Christ as a fabrication rather than as an illustration of the general pattern.

patcleaver

I would believe that the gospels were fiction even if they were not based on the OT, simply because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, and the gospel story does not seem any more special or unique then any of the thousands of other similar fictional stories about fictional divine persons.

There are probably parts of the Gospels that are based on literature that was popular in ancient times, but that is not longer extent. The vast majority of ancient literature is lost.

It seems more likely that Mark was just writing fiction then that a real Jesus was trying to model his life events based on events of the OT. It certainly takes a lot less effort to write fiction then to live your life derived from sections of the OT. Lots of people write fiction, but not many people spend their lives creating events that are derived from ancient books. Why would anybody even write about someone who spent their lives creating events from ancient books? If you decided to model parts of your life based on portions of the OT do you think anyone would care?

A lot of the events in the gospels are nonsense - how do you plan unlikely events. For example, it does not make any sense in the gospels when the people cheer and lay down palm fronds and cloaks for his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem. Did he ride one ass or two? How could he have planned to get crucified if the punishment for blasphemy was stoning to death?

Many of the things that Jesus supposedly did, that are based on the OT, are not recognizable as prophesies of the messiah, so why would he do them, even if he wanted to be mistaken for the messiah? Why would Jesus try to die so that his death would be modeled on Psalm 22 when Psalm 22 is not a prophesy about the messiah?

Ben C Smith

What do you do with the ancient biographies of Augustus and Apollonius (among others) that contain supernatural stories?

Do you think that some ancient people (as described, say, in Josephus) did model their public lives after great events from the Hebrew scriptures?

It does if it was a preplanned event.

This is a Matthean irrelevancy. Nothing in Matthew can turn Mark into either history or nonhistory if Mark wrote before Matthew did.

Ben.

aa5874

Are you implying that it was the supernatural stories that confirmed the existence of Augustus?

If, your answer is in the affirmative, then the supernatural stories about Apollo, Zeus, Achilles and the whole hosts of Gods, from every nation of the world, must be considered as part of their actual biographies.

Virtually all there is about the Jesus stories are supernatural stories from conception to ascension, these cannot be used as an actual biography.

Augustus was not confirmed as existing using supernatural stories about him.

Roland

Good points, patcleaver. The story of Jesus reaks of fiction all the way through. Not only did he have to get himself crucified, but he had to time it so it happened during the feast of Passover in order that he be seen as the symbolic "sacrificial lamb" being led to the slaughter. The story is too cute by half to be believable.