dog-on

A fictional biographical play?

Ben C Smith

Is that what you meant by that phrase? I thought you meant I habitually covered up the fact that I was not very good at theology.

My assessment of Mark as a kind of biography has nothing to do with theology. What little theology I have does not depend on very much that I talk about on this board, and the little bit that does depend on these matters has changed with my historical understanding of them, not vice versa.

You simply have no idea, and I think you are projecting.

Without recourse to any theology at all, yes, I think Mark reads more like an ancient biography than an ancient novel. Without question.

Ben.

aa5874

But, you can only think that Mark was ancient biography, and in any event, what is an ancient biography of a God, the Son of God.

Mark 1.1 And Mark 16.6 What you think of Mark has no support at all. Without question. Mark is about a God which was humanized and not about a man deified.

Ben C Smith

A text cannot be too contrived to be an ancient biography. That was the point of that Burridge quote I offered. The part of ancient biography that overlapped with ancient encomium was often contrived.

Lots of ancient biographies would make pretty good theater. Or pretty good filmography.

There is no single biography that I would compare Mark to. And I regard it as a mistake of sorts to try to narrow it down to a single best one. Just like most other biographies, Mark shares some features with some and other features with others.

Mark shares certain mythic structures and themes with the heroic biographies of Augustus and other divinized men. Mark shares an interest in miracles with the Life of Apollonius. Mark shares a relentless interest in only the good features of his subject with several other biographies, including Agesilaus. In common with most ancient biographies, Mark treats one subject (Jesus, not two lovers as in most novels) and names him very early on, thereafter giving a roughly chronological account (interrupted by topical material, as in many biographies) of his life and death. Mark shares a disinterest in the birth and early life of his subject with Demonax by Lucian.

Turnabout is fair play. Which ancient theatrical work(s) would you compare Mark to?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Mark calls Jesus the son of God.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Do you mean that Mark intended to fool his contemporaries? Or do you mean that he had (or included) reasons to think his contemporaries would take it as fiction in the form of a biography, but they blew it?

No, my question assumes only that Mark intended to place his subject in the early part of century I. Place Mark in 150 for the purposes of this thread, if you wish. That is a span of 120 years. Do you see a difference in the potential historical value of a biography written 120 years after the events it describes and a biography written 1000 years after the events it describes?

Do you know of any other ancient biographies written within a couple hundred years of their purported events that are historically worthless even to the extent that their subjects (probably) did not even exist?

Why do you think this? What does overwhelming history or overwhelming eyewitnesses mean? Do you mean that no history (could have) survived the war(s)? Do you mean that no eyewitness (could have) survived the war(s)?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Yes, this may be relevant. When was Esther written relative to the events it describes?

Remember that I am talking about potential impact on historicity here. I agree that it is possible for a completely fictional text to be written soon after the event that is taken as historical truth upon reception. What I am disagreeing with is that this scenario should be our assumption.

I think Moses had already been honored in ways that parallel deification.

More to the point, however, what in, say, the gospel of Mark is written in terms that Jews could not accept about a messiah figure? Once you peg someone as the messiah, Judaic tradition gives you most of the other terms assigned to Jesus (son of God, prophet, and so forth). The thing that requires explanation is how someone could have thought that a crucified man was the messiah, not why someone already thought to be the messiah was accorded divine honors.

Ben.

dog-on

In it's current form, none that I have ever seen. Though I believe that heroic biographical dramas were written in Rome during the first century and the story itself could have originated in such a format.

It does seem to follow a well constructed plot line.

aa5874

Mark wrote Jesus, the son of God, rose from the dead.

Ben C Smith

Yes, he sure did.

Ben.