Toto

You may be right that the story was meant to be fiction, but you need much more evidence than the mere fact that it contains supernatural elements, fictional material, and LXX references, because we know that there were works with those elements that were not intended as fiction. An enhanced factual account could include these elements.

So you need to go beyond that first glance, especially in dialogue with people who are convinced that there is history there.

dog-on

Sure. Now if they would only point out the actual history...

aa5874

Of couse, they can be dismissed just as the stories about Homer's Achilles were dismissed.

As early as the 4th century, Julian considered the Gods of the Greeks as myths, and even earlier Justin Martyr claimed the Jesus story was nothing new.

Let those who do not want to dismiss them bring their evidence.

patcleaver

Where is the reliable history in the gospels?

Is there history in the sayings of Jesus?
No, even the best historians at that time commonly invented the dialog of their histories.

Is there history in the actions of Jesus?
No, most of the actions of Jesus are derived from sections of the Jewish Scriptures.

We can not find any reliable history in the gospels!

Amaleq13

Is that your conclusion after reading the references Ben offered or is it still uninformed by consideration of the relevant evidence?

Your author would also know if, following the practice used in Ben's references, he made up the story to convey something he believed was true. For example, if he believed Jesus accomplished miraculous healing and he could convey this "truth" by retelling a familiar story of a miracle by Joshua.

Understand? The author knows he wrote fiction yet believes he was conveying truth.

You seem to not only have no way of eliminating this obvious possibility but seem to not recognize that it is an obvious possibility. Perhaps because it only becomes obvious after one sees how other ancient authors wrote?

You can make no assumptions about the historicity of the subject based solely on the inclusion of fiction in descriptions of that subject.

The readers seem integral to the OP question. They are, after all, the presumed target of the alleged indication of fiction.

Did the Gospel Writers Indicate [To Their Readers] That They Were Writing Fiction?

Really? An author can have an intended meaning without an audience in mind? Sounds like a zen koan.

Even if you ignore all references to readers, this should not have prevented you from answering my questions.

How did authors understand "fiction" and "non-fiction" in the first centuries of the Common Era?

Did the inclusion of fictional events or retold familiar stories indicate the entire story was fiction?

Amaleq13

No, especially with anyone who values rational thought regardless of their convictions regarding Jesus' historicity.

dog-on

Authors in the first centuries of the common era understood, very well, both fiction and non-fiction.

The inclusion of fictitious events, in and of itself, did not necessarily mean that the work was to be considered unhistorical. Of course, the author would also use terms similar to allegedly, or according to x, etc...

Where, exactly, does Mark tell his reader that the reader is reading history, in his story?

Amaleq13

I'm sure they did but that wasn't the question.

Why do you struggle so hard to keep a conclusion based on ignorance of the relevant data?

If you actually read the relevant data, you might find that ancient authors may have understood the difference but they didn't always write as though they did.

Is that what you've found after reading the relevant data or is this just more uninformed personal speculation?

Who said he did? Quit wasting so much energy trying to shift the burden.

dog-on

In your opinion...

?

What burden? I am asking you to identify where Mark indicates he is writing actual history.

That isn't a problem, is it?

Clivedurdle

It is obviously history innit?