GakuseiDon

I personally think that he would have. The cave where the she-wolf suckled Romulus and Remus was kept as a kind of shrine on Palantine Hill.

That's a good and interesting point, spamandham, and something I'll have to have a think about. And that's a good example for why I still like coming here!

If you mean, they didn't believe the demigods existed as demigods, then perhaps. The poets were infamous for highlighting the lewd and lurid exploits of the gods in their poetic constructions. I wouldn't call those "ancient biographies", which were meant to exalt their subject's words and deeds. The poets' works were often smutty stories, and made for amusement or satire. But when a historian like Tacitus writes about Jupiter, Saturn and Isis in his histories, he would appear to have regarded them as being real.

Toto

Burridge takes an entire book to define and discuss the category of bioi and show how the gospels fit into that category - but along the way he seems to emphasize the flexibility of the category and its "hazy boundaries."

Given all this, I don't see that you can draw any conclusions about whether the subject is historical or quasi-historical or merely legendary, just by analyzing the literary form.

aa5874

Have you ever read Plutarch's Romulus? It is seems HJers suffer from AMNESIA.

See http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

People can write about characters they BELIEVE were historical or intend for others to BELIEVE were historical.

It is NOT necessary to KNOW that Jesus did exist to write a story about a Messiah called Jesus using what was PRESUMED to be prophecies.

The story of the birth of Jesus is centered around Isaiah 7.14 not an actual birth.

The existence of Jesus is NOT really the question. It is the NATURE of his existence.

It is stated by Church writers that Marcion claimed the Son of God EXISTED as a SPIRIT without human flesh.

It is stated by Athenagoras that the Son of God EXISTED as a philosophical IDEA called the LOGOS.

It is claimed by the Church writers that Jesus EXISTED as God and was with God and then became a man but remained a God.

All BELIEVERS believe the Son of God EXISTED.

It was his PHYSICAL NATURE of Existence that was QUESTIONED.

And after 200 years it was CHRISTIANS who could NOT agree that Jesus EXISTED as a mere man.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 1 by "Tertullian" Even The CHRISTIANS did NOT agree that Jesus EXISTED as a Man.

It would be expected that Christians would AGREE that Jesus was a Man but question his DIVINITY.

But no, Christians did the COMPLETE opposite they AGREED Jesus was of SPIRITUAL nature and QUESTIONED his humanity.

Now, if Jesus was of a SPIRITUAL nature, his FLESH is IRRELEVANT.

The SON OF GOD MESSIAH was all MYTH.

yin_sage

This sure gave me a laugh.

And thanks for the Plutarch reference; very interesting.

aa5874

But, perhaps this will make you laugh some more.

Do you realize that there have been people who have posted here for years who do not even realize that they are MYTHICIST.

These so-called HJers claimed Jesus was RAISED dead but he was human.

I am serious. This is not a joke. But, you can laugh.

yin_sage

I get what you're saying (oddly). But people know perfectly well that they cannot prove signs and wonders by mere association with history. It's just wishful thinking.

Solo

You don't understand the argument. It's not the apocalypse - how much of it was actually ex eventu in Mark's time - but the promise and the fulfilment of the parousia after the tribulations that auto-dates the gospel. It would have been totally crazy for Mark writing in 135CE to make Jesus promise supposedly in the reign of Tiberius, the Son of man collecting 'his elect from the ends of the earth'(13:27) and 'verily this generation shall not pass away till all these things be done' (13:30).

Because you see there is a difference between Mark's readers knowing the gospel was not really history, and you knowing that. You know what the difference was ? Tell me if you do !


Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Once a person argues that Jesus was truly resurrected on the third day after his death they arguing MYTHOLOGY not history.

spamandham

Well, we may not be able to answer whether or not Ovid believed Romulus to be real. Based on statements from other educated Greeks, it seems to me that the educated class knew Romulus was a myth, and Ovid was certainly a member of that class and so I infer he knew he was writing a poetic biography of a mythical person. But there is no way to be sure.

So what do we make about Plutarch then? Did he believed Remus, Romulus, and Theseus to have been real as well? It seems very doubtful to me even though he writes about them in a matter of fact way.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/r_t_comp.html

If ancient biographies were meant to exalt the words and deeds of the subject, then I would argue that the gospels are not ancient biographies, as that is not their purpose. Their purpose is Kerygma.

However, I think we are making too much of these categories. These are modern classifications, and just as in modern times, the lines between genre were not clear cut. New genre were being generated. The category of fiction as we know it was created at this time, as was the first alternate history. It was somewhat of a literary awakening.

spamandham

It seems to me you are taking this more literally than I believe an ancient audience that knew Jesus was an allegory would. For example, almost everyone recognized that Star Trek was making political statements about the 1960s and did not overanalyze it. ....only the trekker nerds obsessed over such incongruities, and the ancient world was much less analytical than we are.

I am promoting the idea that the original gospel author (probably not Mark if we accept the idea of Q) and his audience *knew* that Jesus was allegory. I have submitted as evidence of this the story of the withering of the fig tree. But that is just one bit of evidence among a vast quantity. Other evidence:

In Mark 13, Jesus says "let the reader understand" in regard to the 'the abomination that causes desolation'. Are we to believe that Mark's audience thought Jesus actually said "let the reader understand" in the middle of his monologue!? Would they have analyzed why Jesus would be saying such a thing. Of course not. It's obvious that Mark is talking directly to his audience, and his audience knows it. It isn't Jesus discussing the acts of Hadrian, it's Mark.