|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: I don't believe all of the Bible
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, we're a pair then, as my doctorate in English and my theological/Greek/Hebrew training has failed to open any doors in academia. So no worries.
I must confess that I don't understand what you are saying in your first post (and suspect you don't understand mine either). I've done textual studies. Of course the Bible is a library-full of texts, and of course those reflect a culture (or several, really). Why would that fact invalidate the question of whether a described event in fact occurred?
ETA: I have 30 years' experience living in a partly literate partly oral third world culture (transplanted to the US, yes, but they brought their textual uses with them). And these people at least appear to use texts for the full range of human activities, whether representational or symbolic or both.
In that case, I understand your method of approaching the bible even less. What made me see red was when you said that you could see no triggers in the text not to take it literally. Why should there be any? And in any case, why could/should they not be there when you can't see them? It's entirely possible, for example, that in the culture of original writing/reception, all stories about being swallowed by large marine creatures functioned as allegories of death, or that stories about Nineveh were ways of talking about something else - power, etc. for example. In either case, that knowledge would then be held at cultural, rather than textual level, and no sign would be visible to the reader of the individual text. On the other hand, they would almost certainly be a member of a small receiving/interpreting community, to whom the interpretative tools needed would be a natural part of their culture.
It's also baffling to me why anyone, particularly one of your learning, would make the assumption narratives should have as their natural purpose the retailing of information about the apparent subject. Narratives have always performed a huge variety of functions: why such the ones selected for, or which ended up in, the bible have that particular function?
[ 30. October 2016, 13:39: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
On the more general issue regarding belief in the bible or not it is necessary first of all to decide what the bible is saying. (This is the hard bit which fundamentalists by and large ignore in their scriptural laziness). Only then can one decide whether one agrees or disagrees with what it is saying.
Most people, I guess, believe in some parts more than others. I don't believe, for example, that the God revealed in the life of Christ would command a genocide, but I do believe in faith, hope and love. Others (anticipating Martin60) might have a different opinion!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
The "God revealed in the words of Jesus" insists on condemning those who don't measure up (like calling people fools) to an eternity of pain. Genocide? A mere nothing by comparison.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, we're a pair then, as my doctorate in English and my theological/Greek/Hebrew training has failed to open any doors in academia. So no worries.
I must confess that I don't understand what you are saying in your first post (and suspect you don't understand mine either). I've done textual studies. Of course the Bible is a library-full of texts, and of course those reflect a culture (or several, really). Why would that fact invalidate the question of whether a described event in fact occurred?
ETA: I have 30 years' experience living in a partly literate partly oral third world culture (transplanted to the US, yes, but they brought their textual uses with them). And these people at least appear to use texts for the full range of human activities, whether representational or symbolic or both.
In that case, I understand your method of approaching the bible even less. What made me see red was when you said that you could see no triggers in the text not to take it literally. Why should there be any?
Generally speaking, when a person intends to speak sarcastically, poetically, jokingly, ironically, or otherwise "on the slant," they make sure there is a sufficient signpost so that hearers/readers can interpret what they are saying correctly. This may lie in the situation itself (for example, if I roll my eyes and say "damn Vietnamese drivers," you will interpret me correctly if you realize that I am married to the Vietnamese man who taught ME to drive, and he regularly teases me with American jokes.).
If there is no sufficient signpost in the situation itself, people normally post the sign themselves--either by tone of voice, or by rolling their eyes, or in some other widely understood way of signalling "don't take this straight."
When I look at the words of Christ, I see no such signposts. I am therefore obliged to give serious consideration to the possibility that he might have been speaking "straight."
I am aware of no human cultures where people fail to do this. If you know of one, please tell me.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
And in any case, why could/should they not be there when you can't see them? It's entirely possible, for example, that in the culture of original writing/reception, all stories about being swallowed by large marine creatures functioned as allegories of death, or that stories about Nineveh were ways of talking about something else - power, etc. for example. In either case, that knowledge would then be held at cultural, rather than textual level, and no sign would be visible to the reader of the individual text. On the other hand, they would almost certainly be a member of a small receiving/interpreting community, to whom the interpretative tools needed would be a natural part of their culture.
This is entirely possible but also very improbable. That ancient culture has been studied to death--and it is one of the major springs of our own Western cultures. So we're not talking about some isolated jungle tribe where ancient cultural traditions could bloom and die without ever making it to the notice of the wider world. That the ancient Jews, or first century Jews, could have had some culture-wide signal for irony etc. that nevertheless has eluded all the rest of the world for thousands of years to this day--no, I just can't see it. I'm at the point where I'd choose to believe an impossible-probable over such an improbable possible.
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's also baffling to me why anyone, particularly one of your learning, would make the assumption narratives should have as their natural purpose the retailing of information about the apparent subject. Narratives have always performed a huge variety of functions: why such the ones selected for, or which ended up in, the bible have that particular function?
The retailing of information is and always has been a major purpose of human communication. And not just "watch out for the wolf over there," but also "let me tell you the story of the night you were born." People enjoy story-telling. I know of no culture which does not tell stories.
To be sure, this is not the only purpose of communication; but when I come across a text that looks like a story, and smells like a story, and quacks like a story, well, I'm going to take it that it is a story. It may have secondary purposes (probably does; most stories do). But there's nothing wrong with examining the story as a story either.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Basically, I agree that there tend to be signs for a text that should not be read literally, and/or should be read with irony. OTOH, irony, especially in ancient texts is widely agreed to be hard to spot. A notorious example is 1 Corinthians 4.8-12. quote:
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you! For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as though sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to mortals. We are fools for the sake of Christ, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honour, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, we are poorly clothed and beaten and homeless, and we grow weary from the work of our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure;
There is fairly widespread agreement that Paul is speaking ironically, and that he moves into non-ironic discourse, but the boundary is not absolutely clear, and there are few if any purely textual or rhetorical markers which indicate that irony is present, or where it ends.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To be sure, this is not the only purpose of communication; but when I come across a text that looks like a story, and smells like a story, and quacks like a story, well, I'm going to take it that it is a story. It may have secondary purposes (probably does; most stories do). But there's nothing wrong with examining the story as a story either.
From this it does not in the least follow, however, that the story is meant to express what we call history.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To be sure, this is not the only purpose of communication; but when I come across a text that looks like a story, and smells like a story, and quacks like a story, well, I'm going to take it that it is a story. It may have secondary purposes (probably does; most stories do). But there's nothing wrong with examining the story as a story either.
From this it does not in the least follow, however, that the story is meant to express what we call history.
Certainly. But I was responding here to ThunderBunk's points on whether texts should be considered narrative, and not the other thread question of whether this particular narrative is history or not.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
BroJames, yes, that's a great example of an ironic / sarcastic passage, and I agree with you that boundaries may not be absolutely clear. The case you cite does have a lovely big signpost in the opening bit:
quote:
Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Quite apart from us you have become kings! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we might be kings with you
where it is quite obvious that they are not yet in fact kings, and that Paul of all people would never agree that certain Christians would "make it" to a state of eternal perfection and happiness without the rest of the Church along with them. The rest of the letter makes it abundantly clear that Paul sees some major flaws in their state, so when he states the contrary "Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich and are kings!" it's pretty clear we have to take this as sarcasm, particularly when he follows it up with "indeed, I wish..." In fact, I think this passage is perhaps better signposted than many--the one that comes to mind as slippery to me is the Lord's encounter with the Canaanite woman. Just how far in that conversation does the "slant" go? I tend to see it starting with his silence and walking past her, and ending when he abruptly turns to praising her faith. But on this very Ship we've had umpteen threads where many see no irony at all, and others see it only in the actual "dog" statement. So yes, the textual boundaries can be a bit sloppy.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Where, outside of Jesus' "the only sign you're gonna get is the sign of Jonah" is Jonah, or the three-day-ness of his intestinal fortitude, called a sign? Do we have any indication the people previously thought of it as a sign? Or is this the first time it occurred to them to think of it as a sign?
If it was a sign, what was it a sign of? If the people already knew it was a sign, then Christ is redirecting the sign to himself. But what was it a sign of before that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Not sure who that question is directed to, or what exactly you're driving at, but I imagine that nobody in particular called it a sign before Christ did so. But that wouldn't be too surprising because God seems to have a habit of being willfully obscure (did I say that? oops) and then asking us why we didn't understand him...
So I'd say this is wholly in character for him.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Back to Jonah, if I may. I'd LOVE it ALL to be true, remarkably crafted as it is, reflecting the cultures of Israel and Assyria beautifully. Because if it were, that's not the point. The point is the evolving understanding of God as merciful beyond His chosen people.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Jonah is not a historical book--fact is, it is considered a book of wisdom.
There are certain clues that suggest the story is a parable
Jonah being swallowed by a big fish (not a whale)
Jonah going to the center of Ninevah--everyone hearing the message of Jonah, immediately converting (even the cattle)
Jonah being despondent retreats from Ninevah. God allows a plant to sprout, grow to maturity, and then withers and dies all within the space of a day.
The point of the parable through is about the universality of God--God is just not the God of Israel, but of all nations.
A story does not have to be factual but still tells a truth.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Gramps49 wrote: quote:
Jonah is not a historical book--fact is, it is considered a book of wisdom.
That's one POV. In fact it used to be my POV, but I changed my mind.
When it comes to assigning the book of Jonah to a genre, it's a toughie. It's the one you would do last, not first. If you go looking you can find scholars willing to assign it to pretty well every genre going. So not much help there. The problem with calling it Wisdom is that the Jewish classification of the scriptures actually has a section for wisdom books, and Jonah isn't in it. The early church seemed to agree. That ought at least to give some pause for thought.
So far as it being a book of history is concerned, the most obvious objection would be that it contains elements that give it an almost "wonderland" character. But having elements that you or I may not be willing to accept as passing the test of historicity is no argument against the genre being historical, for a couple of reasons -
- firstly, the historicity test is not predicated on what you or I think may have been factual, but what the writer may have thought factual, and
- secondly, Jewish writings habitually use narrative techniques that incorporate non-factual tropes. Examples would be the use of parables, midrash (especially the variant where a subnarrative explains a passage of a main narrative) and apocalyptic, where the explanation of significance is coded into the main narrative.
My own opinion (which FWIW is not that strongly held) is that the genre is indeed historical, but makes extensive use - maybe we could say overwhelming use - of narrative techniques to make points about the real significance of what the writer probably deems is a rather minor figure in Jewish history.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Honest Ron Bacardi quote:
The historicity test is not predicated on what you or I think may have been factual, but what the writer may have thought factual,
Surely, that is not the case? The writer of Jonah may have believed he was describing historical events, but that does not make them so, does it? He could be mistaken, delusional or whatever. What you and I and others think is very important in determining its provenance as history or whatever. Isn't that what justifies this discussion?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The whole book could almost be a midrash on the single reference to Jonah in 2 Kings.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Honest Ron Bacardi quote:
The historicity test is not predicated on what you or I think may have been factual, but what the writer may have thought factual,
Surely, that is not the case? The writer of Jonah may have believed he was describing historical events, but that does not make them so, does it? He could be mistaken, delusional or whatever. What you and I and others think is very important in determining its provenance as history or whatever. Isn't that what justifies this discussion?
One way of thinking about Jonah is not that it is a book of history or wisdom, but that it is the author's description of a dark night for his soul, so dark that it was as if he were in the belly of a large fish, this being prefaced by his cries for mercy.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Honest Ron Bacardi quote:
The historicity test is not predicated on what you or I think may have been factual, but what the writer may have thought factual,
Surely, that is not the case? The writer of Jonah may have believed he was describing historical events, but that does not make them so, does it? He could be mistaken, delusional or whatever. What you and I and others think is very important in determining its provenance as history or whatever. Isn't that what justifies this discussion?
If you read a bit more carefully, you'll see that HRB was discussing the historicity in terms of intentions of the genre, not the events described therein. The question at stake is whether the author intended readers/hearers to accept what he wrote as a historically true narrative. This says nothing about whether or not he was lying or mistaken.
To give you a parallel example, Trump's retelling of various events concerning Hillary Clinton are definitely historical in genre--it's clear he expects us to believe they really happened. Nevertheless, any fact-checker can tell you that he's using that genre improperly--in other words, lies and exaggeration.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped quote:
To give you a parallel example, Trump's retelling of various events concerning Hillary Clinton are definitely historical in genre--it's clear he expects us to believe they really happened.
Are you serious?!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
What--about Trump expecting people to actually believe him? Yes, of course I'm serious. And what's really serious is the fact that so many people DO in fact believe him, and are voting today. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
The man is misusing the genre he's working in (which is essentially snippets of biography couched in the larger context of campaign speeches and tweets). His primary target is of course Hillary Clinton, but he does the same crap with others such as Alicia Machado.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
If a person wants his readers to believe something which he doesn't believe himself, I would say that was propaganda rather than history.
To be history I think the person has to believe it himself as well as intend the readers to do so. But I agree of course that whether the events are in fact accurately described is not the determining factor.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I fully share your pain, and with most people around the world will breath a sigh of deep relief should he fail to get elected. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I am loathe to include Trump's rantings within the genre of "history" and would much prefer to place it within the confines of "demagoguery": " An appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people."
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I fully share your pain, and with most people around the world will breath a sigh of deep relief should he fail to get elected.
I am loathe to include Trump's rantings within the genre of "history" and would much prefer to place it within the confines of "demagoguery": " An appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side. Demagoguery is a manipulative approach — often associated with dictators and sleazy politicians — that appeals to the worst nature of people."
I think you are taking the word "history" in rather a naive way. "History" in terms of genre refers to a kind of writing--specifically, to a kind of writing that purports to tell the truth about what happened in the past. The word "purports" is the key here. It is possible to have false history; these are commonly known as "lies." But in terms of genre they are still "history"--that is the area of the library they'd be filed in (if a library, for whatever reason, thought it worthwhile to keep on hand a volume of lies). They would not be filed under "science" or "theology" or even "fiction," much as our fingers would itch to put them in the last. The question is what kind of thing they are trying to be--not whether they do a crappy job of it or not.
(That, by the way, is why it is impossible to lie in the genre of fiction. Fiction is a whole genre dedicated to telling tales of things that never were; you cannot have "true fiction" or "lying fiction" anymore than you can have true nursery rhymes or false nursery rhymes. The genre itself rules out truth claims of any sort.)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
If a person wants his readers to believe something which he doesn't believe himself, I would say that was propaganda rather than history.
To be history I think the person has to believe it himself as well as intend the readers to do so. But I agree of course that whether the events are in fact accurately described is not the determining factor.
As to whether it's possible to have false history, see my post just above. But in answer to your other point, it gets sticky to make decisions based on whether you think someone believes it themselves or not. I would guess that Trump does on some level believe most of what he says, even the shining examples of galactic ridiculousness; I have known others of his type, and their thinking is some of the most confused and distorted I have ever run across. In short, I think we overestimate most historical figures who are putting out false claims; I suspect most of them couldn't navigate their way out of a logical paper bag. They have many talents, but honesty (even privately, with themselves) and clear thinking aren't always among them.
[ 08. November 2016, 16:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I have never seen anyone with less self-awareness than Trump. Only this quality allows him to deny the facts (even when there is videotape of it!). He is also an expert at gaslighting -- the insistence upon his own reality. It is you, the hearer, who heard wrong or are crazy or isn't thinking properly.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped quote:
But in terms of genre they are still "history"--that is the area of the library they'd be filed in (if a library, for whatever reason, thought it worthwhile to keep on hand a volume of lies)
Sorry to persist in my naivete, but I think I would want to make a distinction between history and an historical document. For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is a document of some historical significance but is a work of deliberate fiction.
Similarly the fetid imaginings of Trump are worth preserving as historical documentation on the 2016 election, but to classify his "birthing" claims as being of the historical genre seems to me bizarre. It may be, of course, that librarians in Alabama and the like might think and classify differently, but not, one would hope, in New England.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hosting
Let's be a little careful here. Using a contemporary example to illustrate a point about literary genres, etc., is fine, even helpful. So no problem with that. But if the contents of a post are purely political, then the the US Election Thread over in Purgatory is a more appropriate location.
Thanks, everybody.
Mamacita, Keryg Host anticipating a very long day and evening
[ 08. November 2016, 18:25: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Lamb Chopped quote:
But in terms of genre they are still "history"--that is the area of the library they'd be filed in (if a library, for whatever reason, thought it worthwhile to keep on hand a volume of lies)
Sorry to persist in my naivete, but I think I would want to make a distinction between history and an historical document. For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is a document of some historical significance but is a work of deliberate fiction.
Similarly the fetid imaginings of Trump are worth preserving as historical documentation on the 2016 election, but to classify his "birthing" claims as being of the historical genre seems to me bizarre. It may be, of course, that librarians in Alabama and the like might think and classify differently, but not, one would hope, in New England.
I think I'm not being very clear today. What I mean is simply this:
Genre is determined by the FORM of a document, not by the content. So I can say "that's a play, this is a novel, that's a poem" just by noting a few key features. This allows me to sort the various documents into their proper cubbyholes in a bookstore or library. I am not reading the things, I am not making any judgements about their truth value, literary value, or deserve-to-be-part-of-the-human-race value. I am just sorting by format.
There is a genre called "history." To be included in that genre (at least until the librarians pitch you out as actually subtracting meaning from the universe), you need to meet several criteria:
1. Be focused on some aspect of the past, whether it be ancient past or fairly recent past.
2. Make truth claims about your subject (whether you're lying or not doesn't affect whether you wind up in this shelving unit. It MAY affect whether a shocked library patron decides to check your book out permanently and devote it to barbecue use)
3. Have at least a minimal pretense of evidence-based backup. This means footnotes and/or bibliography, or at the very least "so-and-so told me so." You can still be an out-and-out liar (subject to hungry library patron's actions, above) but if you have a bare minimum of pretense to evidence, you end up in the "history" section. No doubt temporarily.
What DOESN'T make it into history?
1. Anything not focused on a past event (so, nothing that is primarily speculation about the future, or rulebooks for how to play poker, or Thai cookbooks).
2. Anything that makes no truth claims. So historical fiction winds up in a different area altogether--it is not attempting to convince you of anything about the past. It is simply entertaining you. Similarly "sex secrets of lost Atlantis" won't wind up here, as the author has no interest in Atlantean history at all. It is far more likely to wind up in the occult section, or the sex section, or in a special area reserved for total loony tunes (if such a section exists in your library, you have my glad permission to fill it with the Protocols and with certain tweets as well).
3. Anything that hasn't got the least pretensions to any evidence at all--not a single footnote, no bibliography, no first-person narrative, no "John told me". In other words, simple assertion without any appeal to any other source other than the writer's imagination. Such a book is not only going to fail out of the history section, but it's likely to fail out of the library as a whole unless someone can browbeat the author into accepting a "fiction" label. If the author refuses, it's likely to end up supporting one end of the check-out desk, as having insufficient credentials to go anywhere else.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
The "God revealed in the words of Jesus" insists on condemning those who don't measure up (like calling people fools) to an eternity of pain. Genocide? A mere nothing by comparison.
As a subset of being the God revealed in Jesus, then yeah. It's VERY typical hyperbole agingjb and where do you get an eternity of pain from?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Lamb Chopped
Make truth claims about your subject (whether you're lying or not doesn't affect whether you wind up in this shelving unit. It MAY affect whether a shocked library patron decides to check your book out permanently and devote it to barbecue use)
The part in brackets is what I was disagreeing with. I entirely agree that you can have mistaken history, but I don't think you can have deceptive history. For me history means that the author's intentions include that of giving an honest account of events.
So the people asked by Stalin to describe the Russian revolution without including Trotsky were in my view writing propaganda, not history.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Auuugghhh. Look, I'm only talking about the GENRE. I'm not talking about the quality, or whether it's counterfeit, or what have you. In fact....
If someone counterfeits a dollar bill, you face much the same problem. What is the "genre" of this thing--what kind of object is it? Answer: It is currency. It is freaking COUNTERFEIT currency, but that's still the genre it falls into. It is not a duck, or taco,or a TV set.
That's all we're saying. You may consider Jonah to be completely and totally WRONG. But in terms of genre, it shows the signs of being intended as straightforward narration of a thing-that-really-happened. Just as Herodotus does--the "father of history".
And plenty of people laugh their asses off at the things Herodotus reported as true.
It's just a different kind of question altogether.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You may consider Jonah to be completely and totally WRONG. But in terms of genre, it shows the signs of being intended as straightforward narration of a thing-that-really-happened.
Can you differentiate this from the parables of Jesus that don't have a "THIS IS A PARABLE!" wrapper? (wrapper i.e. "the kingdom of heaven is like....") Do you accept that parables without such clear evidence of parability must be historical?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There are more markers than just "The kingdom of God is like..." One of the most prominent is the lack of a name--people are identified by roles or characteristics instead. The only exception to this is Lazarus and the rich man, and that one is iffy, since Lazarus means "God is my help," which is precisely his role in the parable (that is, it's not a random unrelated name like "Jonah," which means "dove"). So this particular parable may not be an exception to the otherwise 100% rule either.
Jonah shows no such markers to my knowledge. And the parables of Jesus may showcase the unexpected, but I'm having a really hard time coming up with one that showcases an actual miracle.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You may consider Jonah to be completely and totally WRONG. But in terms of genre, it shows the signs of being intended as straightforward narration of a thing-that-really-happened.
Can you differentiate this from the parables of Jesus that don't have a "THIS IS A PARABLE!" wrapper? (wrapper i.e. "the kingdom of heaven is like....") Do you accept that parables without such clear evidence of parability must be historical?
I dunno, I 'm kind of a recreational folk story buff,and to me both Job and Jonah gave all the cadences of a folk tale. I can see some potential for Jonah being a real person who attracted a lot of folklore, but the story itself has the rhythms of a story told for its philosophical content rather than its historical accuracy.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Sure. But you can have both together. Folk story style rhythms don't by any means rule out an attempt at historicity.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That's a lot different than saying, "This is definitely a true to history account."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
To contrast, the Gospels have kind of a patchwork feel , which is how you would expect a collection of interviews to feel.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
That's a lot different than saying, "This is definitely a true to history account."
True. You have to decide that on other grounds entirely.
Folk story rhythms are awesome--but they are not evidence in either direction. They merely prove that the author (or the storytellers who went before the final author) was a damn good writer.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I was responding primarily to your statement that the book of Jonah has the hallmarks of a "straightforward matter-of-fact historical narrative". I do not see that as a definite, at all.
Now it seems like you are downgrading you" definitely typical historical style " to "possibly a true story told in a folkloric style."
[ 09. November 2016, 05:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ugh. No. That's not what I meant.
Bear with me, you know why my brain is scrambled right now.
Look, I think the one who wrote Jonah intended us to see it as something-that-actually-happened, that is, history. But I also think he (probably a he, but who knows?) intended us to learn stuff from this particular story. Like not to be xenophobic idiots. The two goals are not incompatible. The moral of tonight's horrible happenings could easily be "don't count your chickens until they hatch" (God help us). The fact that it practically pounds that moral into our heads does not stop it being a true story as well. I wish it did.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Now the point about the style. Maybe I can make better sense if I give an analogy. (Or maybe not.)
I have a stock of funny stories (don't we all?) which are factually true, but which make great dinner table conversation. A couple of them are enshrined in the Quotesfile. And you can bet I've done my best to polish the rhythms, the word choice, the comedic timing, etc etc. I flatter myself that they bear a distant resemblance to the genius that is Jonah (cue grumbles: Yes, you DO flatter yourself, don't you? ...)
Anyway, the fact that the stories have literary polish on them doesn't tell you anything about whether they actually happened or not. For that you'd need to know my character, or else be an eyewitness. From the style all you can tell is that I wanted to drive a point home (usually a funny one, but occasionally a serious one).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
As I see it there are two issues here which are getting confused:
1. The classificatory system- in this case literary genre.
2.The classification in which the book of Jonah might be placed.
The advantage of classificatory systems is that they help us to sort out our ideas, the disadvantages are that the boxes defined by the system can be inadequate to cover and differentiate between the variety of items to be classified. A relatively small number of boxes has the virtue of simplicity but can result in shoe-horning some of the items. A large number of boxes designed to recognise more nuances can be so numerous that the system loses its usefulness. In my opinion the genre “history” in Lamb Chopped’s system is too broad and lacking utility if it includes Jonah and Gibbon. As to the second question we need to know how many classificatory options there are before we can discuss into which box Jonah might be appropriately lodged.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I don’t believe everything I read in the bible because I think the writers at times tell downright fibs.
Consider the anointing of David by Samuel. (The genre, by the way, is history).
According to the book of Samuel, Samuel anointed the boy, David, as King of Israel because God had revoked his favour from Saul (1Samuel 16). Subsequently, things went on as before. David continued to mind the sheep and Saul remained King. Samuel did not, for example, inform the people that Saul had had his anointed status withdrawn and transferred it to God’s new choice, David. Curiously, David, inadvisably one might have thought, became a member of the court and soothed Saul with his psalm-singing. It is not clear whether Israel had one or two anointed Kings.
David later emerged as a warrior, fell out with Saul and rebelled against him. In the course of the struggle with Saul David’s men found the King in, shall we say, a compromising position, and invited David to kill him. David, however, refused to do so: “seeing he is the Lord’s anointed”. To my mind this is rather odd, given the circumstances of his own anointing. Odd, too, that he should be so fastidious regarding Saul’s legitimacy given his rebellion against him. The incident concluded with David falling to the ground in fealty to Saul and telling Saul he did not kill him because he was the Lord’s anointed. (1 Samuel 24). But wasn’t David aware he had been so anointed himself? Indeed, he knew his anointing had replaced that of Saul, according to the biblical account.
What I think we are dealing with here is spin-doctoring on behalf of David. IMO David was never anointed by Samuel as a boy, and that he rose to power and influence as a warrior in Saul’s army. Given his greater popularity than the aging Saul he eventually rebelled against him and sought the throne for himself by force. The Philistines killed Saul and after a struggle between the houses of Saul and David the latter became king. David, in other words, usurped the throne by force of arms from the legitimate heirs of Saul. It was embarrassing to the chronicler that David was not a legitimate ruler so he concocted the incident involving Samuel. I also have my doubts about the incident in the cave.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
[
I would be inclined to differentiate between "fibs" and ( how can I put it) "traditional embellishments" . Meaning, I guess, if a folklore element or friend- of -a - friend tale did wind up in the Bible, why did it? (For instance, what were they trying to say about the desired traits of a warrior/ king with the cave story?)
First of all, it's unwise to disregard the importance of folk tales in the formation of a pre- literacy, pre- scientific culture. Stories were all they had to unite each other and teach each other. So, rather than putting myself through convolutions trying to figure out whether a clearly tall tale like Jonah's is a bit of reportage, I stick to asking myself, "What is happening in the story that would make it so important to include in an official collection of oral tradition?"
Second, since the word "folklore" has degenerated to a synonym for "fairy tale" , I was trying to think of a modern literary equivalent, and I came up with something annoyingly American-- the High School required reading list.
For instance: a popular addition to many reading lists is "The Lord of the Files" . If a modern day prophet was discussing a noteworthy person and muttered, "One day he will see the fate of Piggy on the island," not only would that analogy work quickly for those who got the reference, but it would be chillingly specific.
Such a reference doesn't need to be a factoid, it just needs to be powerful and quickly grasped.
[ 09. November 2016, 18:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(I should explain, the reading list designates works of literature that have manifestly had an impact on a culture's group consciousness. Something you could call a canon, for good reason.)
[ 09. November 2016, 18:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Kelly Alves wrote: quote:
For instance: a popular addition to many reading lists is "The Lord of the Files"
A salutary tale of bureaucratic degradation I agree.
But seriously (and sorry for being away for a couple of days), Lamb Chopped is making the same point as I am. Y'all are taking the assertion of genre as being historical way beyond its limited remit.
To some extent as well, it's a shame that the focus has been on mistakes or deliberate invention. The first is always possible, but the latter is problematic in its own right. Much more likely is the involvement of one of the many Jewish techniques I flagged up above which are deployed to bring clarity and explanation to a narrative. And all that is without considering more technical stuff, such as the Jewish love of lexical and philological "clues" within their writing.
Honestly, if you are going to put 2500+ year old writings through the modernist mangle (which is all you can really do on a "me and my bible" basis), then how do you expect to make much sense of any meaning beyond the superficial? Surely the correct plan of action is to determine the nature of the genre (which may need the appreciation of extinct genres or genres that have changed their understanding somewhat). Then you can look at all these things we have been talking about. Always being aware that you may need to revise your views at some point of course.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
The only reason I brought upLOTF is that it made a handy example of something most of us know. The sticking point above seemed to be that "Jesus would't bring up Jonah unless he was an historic figure." Meaning, by inference, that him referring to a fictional figure would somehow make his statements questionable.
To back up the idea that Jesus wasn't making stuff up, I guess, LC said the book was written in a clearly historical style. I pointed out that said style didn't really match the other clearly historical styles in the Bible, and seemed to have more in common with recorded oral folklore ( like the stories in Genesis) She then said all that meant was there was no way of telling either/ or, which was quite different than what she said before.
I just don't see the problem with the actual historical Jesus who actually died and rose also being a knowledgeable person who knew how to use a metaphorical example.
Nigel's breakdown helps a lot.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Nigel's breakdown helps a lot.
Huh? .... ... ... Hahahahahaha! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
(This really should go into the quotes file.)
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Nigel's breakdown helps a lot.
My psychiatrist and my wife both thought so too.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
(I was waiting for that.)
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
