gstafleu

The bit about John seems weak to me, for the reasons stated by others. But for Mark I think you have an excellent observation. Mark has always read as intentional fiction to me, so I guess in that respect such an ending makes sense.

As for Matt and Luke, my impression (not more than that) has always been that they didn't clue in that Mark was fiction, took it for real (more or less), and veered off from there. This would then mean that we should not expect such a fiction-give-away in these two gospels.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

Logically, all that may be concluded is that the narrative that's put forward in the film cannot be verified by Ptolemy's work. That the basic narrative of the events of which Alexander's campaigns and carrier consisted that the film recounts is not true is nonsense.

Leaving aside the fact that the film does not claim to be an accurate history, your claim fails to take into account the fact that we have other accounts of Alexander's campaigns that are parallel to, coincide with, and confirm what the film puts forth as Ptolemy's narrative of these events. So your conclusion that what the film puts forth as Ptolemy's account of the events of Alexander's career cannot possibly be accurate is not only invalid; it is a non sequitur.

Jeffrey

show_no_mercy

Luke actually seems to follow the same logic of the Oliver Stone movie in the OP. It states right off the bat that it's not an eyewitness testimony but he claims that he "investigated" it. However, Luke never cites his source. We don't know anything about his source so it's only marginally better than admitting outright that the single source of his information was in a library that burned down.

Jeffrey Gibson

How does not citing a source equate in any way with citing a source and then saying it is no longer available (if indeed, this is what Stone has his film say).. And does Stone actually say in the same way that he is "citing" (or investigating) a source?

May we first establish that Stone did what Jay says or allleges that he did before we make the sorts of comparisons, let alone drawn the conclusions from these "comparisons", that you do?

And why take what a 20th century film maker supposedly does as in any way determinative for what the ancients thought to be indicative of fiction. Shouldn't any appeal to what the ancient thougth of as indicating fiction be to statements of the ancients as to what they thought was indicative of fiction?

Have you noticed that Jay rarely if ever makes such an appeal when he puts forward claims like the ones in his OP?

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson

You don't believe that Mark was Luke's source?

Stephen

patcleaver

Obvious fabrication of portions of the gospels from Jewish Scripture would have been an obvious indication of fiction. If Mark’s original audience were well versed in the Jewish Scriptures and other Jewish and Greek literature, then the story would have been a spotting game.

In the same way, the sayings of Jesus were probably all just sayings of various sages that were well known to Mark’s audience – famous Rabbis and Greek philosophers. Putting well known words of well known sages into the mouth of Jesus would be an obvious indication of fiction.

Also there are indications in the Gospels that Jesus’ magic tricks were fake, which would indicate that the story was intended to be understood as fiction. For example, the audience was instructed to lie down in the tall grass before the multiplication of fish and loaves, the hints that indicate that some of the people who were cured were shills, the hints that support a swoon theory of non-resurrection.

The fact that all the prophesies that Jesus made were failures would have indicated to the Jews that the story was fiction (e.g. 3-days and 3-nights, return in your lifetime).

Contradictory and nonsense things that Jesus said may have been intended as indications of fiction. (e.g. misquoting scripture, the sermon on the mount)

Nonsense things that Jesus did, such as cursing the fig tree or casting the money changers out of the Temple, may have been intended to be an indication that the story is fiction.

Nonsense things that happen or that are described in the story, such as, people dropping everything and following someone they do not know, a Roman tradition of releasing a prisoner according to mob rule, Pontius Pilot being merciful to a troublemaker, may have been an intentional indication of fiction.

Mistakes in Palistine geography, such as, that Nazareth is a town, that Sidon is on the way from Tyre to the sea of Galilee, that the sea of Galilee is large enough for big waves, that Gerasa is near the sea of galilee, could be intentional mistakes intended to indicate that the story was fiction.

Mistakes in Jewish customs, such as, that wives could divorce their husbands or that all Jewish people had to wash their hands before they ate, could be intentional mistakes intended to indicate that the story was fiction.

The incorporation of well known Pagan themes, such as, magical birth, symbolic cannibalism, and the tragic defeat and then surprise magical triumph of a divine hero, birth/death at a solstice or equinox.

The fact that Jesus failed to fulfill any of the real messiah prophesies, but he fulfilled so many unrelated non-prophesies, such as, the virgin birth non-prophesy and the tribe of Bethlehem non-prophesy, would have been an indication of fiction for a Jewish audience.

The fact that Mark is written with a chiastic structure seems to be an indication that its intended to be fiction. See Decoding Mark by John Dart

Mark may have originally been a play, and plays are usually assumed by the audience to be fiction.

Having Jesus come from Galilee when the Jewish Scriptures say that "nothing good comes out of Galilee".

Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead where no one would live, and the fact that Jesus "came from Nazareth" would indicate that the story was fiction.

The fact that we never learn what is "the secret to the kingdom of heaven" that he secretly teaches the apostles.

The fact that Jesus taught in parables might be intended to indicate that the entire Jesus story itself is a parable. Parables within a parable.

I read somewhere that each succeeding section of Mark has the same theme as succeeding sections or lessons of the Torah.

The use of many fictional literary devices such as foreshadow, irony, symbolism, allegory, surprise, conspiracies are obvious indications of fiction.

show_no_mercy

That's what a majority of scholars infer due to the similarities. But this just pushes the "source" back one peg... ie who was Mark's source? (According to Irenaeas who was supposedly going of of Papias who was going off of... ... ...)

Ben C Smith

Several qualifications are in order here:

1. Irenaeus mentions Papias by name only once, and it is not with respect to the authorship of the gospel of Mark (or any other gospel).
2. When Irenaeus does write about the authorship of the gospel of Mark, he agrees with Papias, and many suspect that his tradition came from Papias one way or another; however, Irenaeus adds stuff that we do not find in our extant fragments of Papias; for example, he adds that Mark wrote the gospel in Rome.
3. It is Eusebius who explicitly quotes Papias on the authorship of the the gospel of Mark (as well as that of Matthew); IOW, the straightest line of discussion of what Papias has to say about Mark does not pass through Irenaeus; it passes through Eusebius.
4. No need for that final ellipsis; Papias claims in our fragment to have received his information from a certain elder named John, whom he says was a disciple of the Lord.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

The discussions about irony, the points above, make me wonder are we looking at in Mark a deliberately contrived game or exercise - a sophisticated where's wally, crossword and comedy to entertain sophisticated people?

Maybe there were prizes for those who could get the most allusions.


Superb way to spend winter evenings, but then the most wondrous irony of all - someone thought it was real!

Amaleq13

How is that an indication of a fake miracle or a fictional account?

What passages contain these hints?