aa5874

I have before me a fiction novel. There is a disclaimer which reads 'The characters and events in this book are fictitious. Any simlarity to known persons, living or dead is coincidental and not intended by the author.

Now bearing this disclaimer in mind, at what point does a person regard a book as fictitious that claims to be non-fiction?

The Gospels of the NT have four different accounts of a character or characters named Jesus Christ. It is accepted that all the miraculous acts, virgin birth, healings, raising of the dead, resurrection and ascension are most likely to be fictitious. Other events which may not be fictious lack chronological corroboration.
However, there is one event, the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate of the character(s) Jesus Christ that is consistent in the Gospels.
Can we say the Gospels are non-fiction because the crucifixion appear to be consistent?

I will make an analogy. I will write a book about a character GB. The book is claimed to be non-fiction. The book goes on sale, with the following information:

1. GB was born before WW2.
2. GB was born just after WW2.
3. GB fought against Iraq.
4. GB fought terrorism.
5. GB was married.
6. GB was living in America.
7. GB was the son of God.

Can we classify GB as a non-fiction character , even if it cannot be determined who GB was. And can we say anyone who is called GB, in another book, is the same as my GB ?

At what point should the Gospels be regarded as fiction?

mountainman

From a natural and objective scientific point of view
the entire package needs to be examined as a fourth
century fiction, at some point, and not
only on account of the failure of the integrity of many
of its constituent elements, some of which you listed
in the original post, but on account of the failure of
such integrity tests in a number of different disciplines,
including ancient history.

The problem is, as in any region of academic tenure
there are often vested interests in the mainstream
positionality, outside the scope of objective equanimity.


However, if you insist to logically consider the likelihood
of the NT being fiction, then you will IMO be led to consider
in an objective fashion the logical implications that we
are dealing with - not a Eusebian history, but a Eusebian
ahistory.

I have listed and discussed the following 5 logical implications
of a Eusebian ahistory at this page:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_000.htm

These are:

First Implication of Historical Fiction = Alternative
The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Second Implication of Historical Fiction = Conjoins
The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

Third Implication of Historical Fiction = Precedent date
The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Fourth Implication of Historical Fiction = Turbulent controversy
The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Fifth Implication of Historical Fiction = party with power
The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.


If you allow yourself to attempt an independent and objective
assessment of the possibility that we are dealing with a Eusebian
ahistory (ie: a fiction) then the picture needs to be understood.

On this page I have attempted to depict the picture
(implication of a Eusebian ahistory) in a diagramatic fashion:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_010.htm


However, your question can be answered emphatically
from the historical perspective immediately, with the
words of the supreme emperor Julian, who within 40 years
of the Council of Nicaea, took the time to write an account
which he entitled "Against the Galilaeans", and which
the opening statement of the author is as follows:

"It is, I think, expedient
to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."

To conclude, two statements:

1) An index of independent citations to any archeological
and/or scientific evidence needs to be examined for the claim
that christianity did not at all exist in the ante-Nicaean Epoch.
Here is such an index of exceptions, not yet complete:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm

2) Dont underestimate the degree of intelligence able to be
brought to bear by supreme imperial mafia thugs in the 4th
century as regarding the breaking of traditions.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_002.htm



Pete Brown

Doug Shaver

That would be the point at which a person becomes aware of factual evidence sufficient to justify a belief that the book is a work of fiction.

Roland

I think we can pretty much dismiss all of Jesus' statements in John's gospel as products of the writer's imagination. If Jesus had really said all the things the writer claims he did, certainly those who wrote Matthew, Mark and Luke would have included SOME of them in their own accounts.

Roland

Certainly the birth narratives include a great deal of legend and mythmaking.

Toto

No problem, that's why there are moderators to clean up.

Huon

That needs a very big broom !

aa5874

I think we should dismiss the entire books of the Gospels. Although we can clearly see that the author of John has described the life of his character Jesus differently, if we dismiss John's account, only, we are implying the other books of the Gospels may be true.

However, Matthew, Mark and Luke contradict each other's accounts and appear to have used information from a single source. If that single source is fiction, then Matthew's, Marks' and Luke's writings, although similar, would also be fictitious.

It cannot be determined if the author of Mark copied his version of Jesus from some other uknown fictional source, but it is known that the character as described carried out fictitious acts, such as virgin birth, miraculous healings, raising the dead, resurrection and ascension.

Now, according to the Gospels, the title the Christ only applies to a person of whom there is prophecy, was born of a virgin, did miraculous acts, including raising the dead, was resurrected and ascended into heaven. And since it can be determined, with reasonable certainty, that those preceeding events never occurred, no-one has ever qualified to be called the Christ.

Therefore, the Gospels, although they contain the words Jesus Christ, actually refer to a fictitious entity, which cannot be identified.

It would appear that the Gospels have no credibilty and should be rejected.

Gamera

Using this criterion Pericles, not to mention most historical figures of the classic period, are fictional.

Roland

I tend to agree with you here. I just chose the Gospel of John as a minimalist starting point for "fiction," which could later be broadened to include much else (if not indeed everything) in the story.