andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:25 pm
One issue here is how far Mark for example was constrained by the ideas about Jesus previously accepted by his audience.
Andrew Crddle
Yes. It’s clear that his Jesus at the time of writing was “a man who needed no introduction.” However, I’m not sure what “constrain” really amounts to. Was Christopher Nolan constrained by prior versions of the Batman story before he made his trilogy? Sorta kinda not really.
Another issue. If we can infer the existence of “ideas about Jesus previously accepted by his audience,” that does not entail that we have adequate evidence what those ideas would have been.
billd89 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:55 am
No, Baudelaire was CERTAINLY a bullsh*tter and Narcissist. We should not equivocate on the truth (which does exist).
This is irrelevant to the topic.
The topic was your illustration of Baudelaire, his invention, etc. and what it means. That was addressed. Baudelaire isn't "Mark"; false equivalence, here.
Irish1975 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 11, 2021 12:19 pm
Here's a true story ...why I don't credit arguments that depend crucially on what ancient writers or their audiences "must have believed."
Your OP is about "arguments" (which I presume to be about 'history' and 'facts'), but now you've switched to talking about "art" and 'fiction'? These are NOT the same topic; I don't conflate the two.