spamandham

I agree. Though I don't think it would be necessary to show such a specific similarity as you suggested, others provided you your requested example nonetheless.

spamandham

If the Christian church had died off in the 2nd century, and we were just now today uncovering and translating Mark, would any scholar conclude it was intended as history? Maybe a few would, but not many.

IMHO, the only reason such an assumption is made is because of a tradition of assuming it.

Amaleq13

There was no purpose to providing a specific setting in time and place?

Amaleq13

I only asked one and your questions provided no answers to it. :huh:

Amaleq13

It is enough to simply observe that the authors were promoting a specific view to reject the possibility of historicity?

That standard seems too low.

neilgodfrey

You've lost me. Are you suggesting that any story set in a specific time and place is meant to be historical?

But to repeat something you suggested was a superfluous contribution of mine earlier, . . . .

The Gospel of Peter tells us that the name of the centurion who guarded Jesus's tomb was Petronius. That was set in the specific time and place of Herod and Pilate. Is that meant to be an historical flourish? An historical fact?

The same gospel also affirms that on the very day Herod and Pilate spoke to each other the earth shook the moment Jesus' body touched the ground. A major event that could not be denied or ignored occurring in the specific time and place. Surely historical.

The Proto-Gospel of James is set in the time of Herod and Augustus, specifically named, and in their time a mountain split in two to hide Elizabeth and John -- in a scene directly involving action and dialogue with Herod and his servants. No author would link such a truly remarkable event to real people, especially if others already who knew the story from old - from even more reliable sources - could verify its accuracy or truthfulness to the original accounts, unless it were indeed historical. Ditto for stories of men flying off in clouds up into the sky, of gods and men rushing across or leisurely strolling across vast expanses of deep water, of devils and angels visiting heroes in the wilderness, of scores of zombies coming out of their graves at the signal of a great earthquake and wandering the streets of Jerusalem.

Xenophon, who wrote really true history, also wrote a biography of a true historical figure, King Cyrus. It was a story that had a major cultural impact for generations. Not a single word of it, except for the names of some of the characters, and the time and place, was true.

The purpose of adding setting and little colourful details etc, as taught in schools, was verisimilitude. Novelists today have not lost the art. (Though in some genres it appears to have had a metaphorical or theological significance as well.)

youngalexander

mere corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative

(or words to that effect) W.S.Gilbert

spamandham

Indeed it is. Good thing I never said anything even remotely like that then.

Amaleq13

No. I'm suggesting that a story set in a specific time and place presents an initial appearance (ie prima facie) of describing events in history. I have no idea if the author intended to record history as accurately as possible while telling his story or if he chose to doctor up a complete fiction with the appearance of historicity.

How can we know without external confirmation? Verisimilitude or a record of a known fact? It is the former at the least but it isn't realistic to expect us to be able to confirm the latter in this instance.

If we rely on the, IMV, strong argument from silence that we would expect external confirmation of such an event. No confirmation = no event. It seems entirely possible that this fictional event was placed in an historical setting to relate a message about significance rather than an accurate record of fact. IOW, it says more about how the author wants me to feel about the story than whether this fantastic detail has any basis in history.

Why do you think he chose to write in this way?

And how was it confirmed that what he wrote was untrue?

Amaleq13

My apologies. I thought the contrast you offered between "trying to honestly record history" and writing "propoganda" in this post was supposed to be meaningful.