Duh

[MaxVel]

The fact that there is such a distinct cultural gap is what leads me to question if the entire intention wasn't metaphoric, as opposed to literal. I mean, how do you really know that the authors of the Bible, intended their work to be viewed as a historical document? It's not as though there is a preface which states "the following events are based on a true story".

A few possible examples that come to mind {all from the NET Bible}:

Luke 1:1 {Explanatory Preface}

Now1 many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
Luke 1:2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning.
Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

Luke is saying his account is a careful compilation of 'what actually happened'.

John 21:24 {A Final Note}

This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
John 21:25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

John's gospel claims to be the testimony of one of Jesus' 12 disciples, and record some of the "...things that Jesus did."

Deuteronomy 1:1 The Covenant Setting

This is what Moses said to the assembly of Israel in the Transjordanian wastelands, the arid country opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Di Zahab
Deu 1:2 Now it is ordinarily an eleven-day journey from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by way of Mount Seir.
Deu 1:3 However, it was not until the first day of the eleventh month of the fortieth year that Moses addressed the Israelites just as the LORD had instructed him to do.
Deu 1:4 This took place after the defeat of King Sihon of the Amorites, whose capital was in Heshbon, and King Og of Bashan, whose capital was in Ashtaroth, specifically in Edrei.

The opening verses of Deuteronomy place it in a clear historical and geographical context.

[Xru]

A few possible examples that come to mind {all from the NET Bible}:




Luke is saying his account is a careful compilation of 'what actually happened'.







John's gospel claims to be the testimony of one of Jesus' 12 disciples, and record some of the "...things that Jesus did."





The opening verses of Deuteronomy place it in a clear historical and geographical context.

Right he makes a good point but as you clearly point out there are direct statements that either explicitly state the intention of recording fact or imply it.

[Jon_Day]

A few possible examples that come to mind {all from the NET Bible}:




Luke is saying his account is a careful compilation of 'what actually happened'.







John's gospel claims to be the testimony of one of Jesus' 12 disciples, and record some of the "...things that Jesus did."





The opening verses of Deuteronomy place it in a clear historical and geographical context.

None of these items seem to clarify with any certainty (at least to me) that the authors of the bible intended it to be viewed as a historical document. That is, there is no clear definition given between fiction, and non-fiction. Certainly, a personal interpretation can be made of the text provided, and I would encourage such endeavors for theists and atheists alike. However, I do not think that we can assume intent, whether it be literal nor metaphoric.

If I create a fictional story, and give it a setting of Spain...surely Spain exists, but this does not convert my fictional story into a literal historical record. Additionally, I can say something like "in my heart, it is true". Seemingly this could be extrapolated and interpreted to mean that I am attempting to express some truth. However, I am simply communicating a poetic notion resembling the idea that "perhaps its true, perhaps not, but for me it creates such a wealth of emotion that it has to be true".

Get my meaning?

[shunyadragon]

None of these items seem to clarify with any certainty (at least to me) that the authors of the bible intended it to be viewed as a historical document. That is, there is no clear definition given between fiction, and non-fiction. Certainly, a personal interpretation can be made of the text provided, and I would encourage such endeavors for theists and atheists alike. However, I do not think that we can assume intent, whether it be literal nor metaphoric.

If I create a fictional story, and give it a setting of Spain...surely Spain exists, but this does not convert my fictional story into a literal historical record. Additionally, I can say something like "in my heart, it is true". Seemingly this could be extrapolated and interpreted to mean that I am attempting to express some truth. However, I am simply communicating a poetic notion resembling the idea that "perhaps its true, perhaps not, but for me it creates such a wealth of emotion that it has to be true".

Get my meaning?

I believe this is the better interpretation. The Bible is set in history, and refers to historical figures places and events, but it is not a historical document.

[MaxVel]

None of these items seem to clarify with any certainty (at least to me) that the authors of the bible intended it to be viewed as a historical document. That is, there is no clear definition given between fiction, and non-fiction. Certainly, a personal interpretation can be made of the text provided, and I would encourage such endeavors for theists and atheists alike.

Are you asking for ancient authors to define their works, within those works, according to modern literary criteria? That's what it looks like to me, and I can't really understand why you think that makes any sense at all...?

However, I do not think that we can assume intent, whether it be literal nor metaphoric.

So when the author of Luke writes: "So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." {Emphasis mine} that is not a statement of intent? I don't see how we need to 'assume' anything about Luke's intent, he says it right at the start of his work.

If I create a fictional story, and give it a setting of Spain...surely Spain exists, but this does not convert my fictional story into a literal historical record. Additionally, I can say something like "in my heart, it is true". Seemingly this could be extrapolated and interpreted to mean that I am attempting to express some truth. However, I am simply communicating a poetic notion resembling the idea that "perhaps its true, perhaps not, but for me it creates such a wealth of emotion that it has to be true".

Get my meaning?

Uh... yeah. So how do you know that the Biblical texts are fictional?

[MaxVel]

I believe this is the better interpretation. The Bible is set in history, and refers to historical figures places and events, but it is not a historical document.

That's just silly. I assume you apply exactly the same standards to the Buddhist scriptures - they're even less historical than the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

That's just silly. I assume you apply exactly the same standards to the Buddhist scriptures - they're even less historical than the Bible.

Yes I use the same standards for Buddhist, Christian and Jewish scriptures. Both the NT and Buddhist scriptures lack any known gospel scripture within the life of Jesus nor Buddha. Complete gospels are not know from both until later. This in reality is not the subject of the thread.

No not silly, neither the Buddhist nor the Bible are historical documents, they are set in history. Also, the Buddhist scriptures make no reference to historical events themselves. It is other historical record that refer to the history of Buddhism.

[Jon_Day]

Are you asking for ancient authors to define their works, within those works, according to modern literary criteria? That's what it looks like to me, and I can't really understand why you think that makes any sense at all...?

Nope. I'm not asking that at all. I'm simply pointing out that since they have not done so, you cannot use modern linguistic analysis to make determinations about the intentions of an author...such as you are doing.

So when the author of Luke writes: "So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." {Emphasis mine} that is not a statement of intent? I don't see how we need to 'assume' anything about Luke's intent, he says it right at the start of his work.

I still don't see where he's given any indication that his intention was to relay a historical document that is non-fictional. I agree that there is a strong implication, and am not debating that issue. My debate is with whether truth can be extrapolated from this text with any certainty. If we look at the text, he's simply stating here (using the modern translation that you're using, although you seemed to have a problem with doing so in your above statement) that he has provided an orderly account, and that he has done so in order for you to be sure that what you've been taught is true. However, he gives no indication as to the implication of "what you were taught", and its relative comparison to "truth" (nor what truth means in this scenario). For something I am taught to be true, does not imply that what I was taught was an empirical historical event. Were that the case, all of literature and any abstract concept for that matter, would be a complete waste of time.

Additionally...I'm fairly sure that to validate a work as non-fictional, one would not generally point to a speaker within the actual story itself as the evidence. It doesn't seem like a good way to go about it. If Dracula told me his story was true, from within the pages of the story...would that mean it were? In fact, I've read many a story where the fictional narrator said those very words "I assure you what you are about to read is the truth". Should I then assume all of those works were also non-fiction?

Uh... yeah. So how do you know that the Biblical texts are fictional?

I don't (and never said they were, or that I knew). Might be fictional, might not be. The Gospels seem to be presented in a more journalistic yet poetic format, whereas the 5 books of Moses seem to be presented as more of an allegory. It's certainly difficult to determine, and I always find it funny that some Christians like to apply such certainty that it is non-fiction, and yet turn to the fact that I cannot be certain it is fiction as a counter-argument. I'm not sure that usually works out for anyone.

[MaxVel]

Nope. I'm not asking that at all. I'm simply pointing out that since they have not done so, you cannot use modern linguistic analysis to make determinations about the intentions of an author...such as you are doing.

Jon, I haven't done any 'modern linguistic analysis' - I've just quoted what the texts themselves say.

I still don't see where he's given any indication that his intention was to relay a historical document that is non-fictional. I agree that there is a strong implication, and am not debating that issue. My debate is with whether truth can be extrapolated from this text with any certainty.

So now you're disagreeing, then agreeing (sort of), and then changing the topic to whether we can know truth from this text?

I think you're asking for something that is anachronistic. AFAIK the ancient writers didn't use a genre of 'historical fiction' (i.e. fiction, but set in a real place, time, and with some references to real people and events).

If we look at the text, he's simply stating here (using the modern translation that you're using, although you seemed to have a problem with doing so in your above statement)

No idea at all what you mean by the underlined part.

that he has provided an orderly account, and that he has done so in order for you to be sure that what you've been taught is true. However, he gives no indication as to the implication of "what you were taught", and its relative comparison to "truth" (nor what truth means in this scenario). For something I am taught to be true, does not imply that what I was taught was an empirical historical event. Were that the case, all of literature and any abstract concept for that matter, would be a complete waste of time.

I think this is very confused. I understand Luke's phrase 'so that you may know for certain the things you were taught' to mean in it's context that he is writing his account, based on his own experiences and from eyewitness accounts, so that Theophilus may know that what he was taught is in fact what actually happened (IOW, true). Now it's possible that Luke is in fact reporting accurately' an elaborate 'fairy tale'

Additionally...I'm fairly sure that to validate a work as non-fictional, one would not generally point to a speaker within the actual story itself as the evidence. It doesn't seem like a good way to go about it. If Dracula told me his story was true, from within the pages of the story...would that mean it were? In fact, I've read many a story where the fictional narrator said those very words "I assure you what you are about to read is the truth". Should I then assume all of those works were also non-fiction?

1. You're assuming your conclusion by citing modern fictional works as a valid comparison

2. What the author writs about his own purpose in writing a text is (like a preface or foreword in a modern work) prima facie evidence of his intent. The normal historical approach is to grant that as being true, unless one has evidence-based reasons to doubt it. So far what you're saying is just raising objections based on possible hypothetical scenarios and an ancient text's 'failure' to meet your modern expectations of what a historical text 'should be' written like, rather than interacting with the empirical evidence (the text itself, for instance).

It looks to me that your objections to the Bible being a historical document arise from your broad skepticism rather than from any actual problems with the texts themselves.


3. How, if we adopt your approach, can we ever have any idea of what an author's intent was? You've said that we can't take what the author says in the text itself as showing his intent. So how do we figure out what his intent was?

I don't (and never said they were, or that I knew). Might be fictional, might not be. The Gospels seem to be presented in a more journalistic yet poetic format, whereas the 5 books of Moses seem to be presented as more of an allegory. It's certainly difficult to determine, and I always find it funny that some Christians like to apply such certainty that it is non-fiction, and yet turn to the fact that I cannot be certain it is fiction as a counter-argument. I'm not sure that usually works out for anyone.

AFAIK the gospels and at least the Pauline letters were taken as being historical accounts (i.e. true) from the days of the Early church - historically speaking, a very short time after the events in question. The idea that they might be (elaborate) works of fiction is a much later invention.

[Xru]

Nope. I'm not asking that at all. I'm simply pointing out that since they have not done so, you cannot use modern linguistic analysis to make determinations about the intentions of an author...such as you are doing.

Nowing next to nothing about this subject I consulted with a new TWebber who specializes in middle-Ages codicology and paleography. He also has studied and is studying OT codicology and paleography. These are the disciplins we should be talking about. Wether this is modern linguistic analysis or not I'm not sure but I doubt it.

It is much more complex to attempt translations from 2000 or more years ago.

I'll reproduce in part the PM from Otter:

"Long is the learning....

You definitely want to treat Biblical codicology and paleography differently than you do the medieval manuscripts... Some of the basic principles and vocabulary are the same, but Hebrew writing in particular poses some peculiar problems, and of course the habits of scribes are pretty idiosyncratic, enough so that we can often date paleography and pin it to a time and place.

I'm pretty conversant with the discipline in the medieval period, and an informed amateur in the biblical manuscripts.

Forgive me if I give you titles in short-form without links. I'm in a bit of a rush to get some grading done."

I'm currently reading a book which examines some of the Luke parables. Fascinating reading."

As I realized when I read Ottor PM I'm really going to have to read books on OT and NT codicology and paleography to get up to speed so-to-speak. Suggest we all do the same.

[AlphaBravo]

How are we supposed to evaluate/assess the true nature of what the ancient recorders of the words of or Beloved Jesus REALLY represented when the cultural differences are difficult to assess. After all there is s difference between finding artifacts and wrings that illuminate but what about LIVING in the milieu.. Second, how can we be sure that the translations from Hebrew and especial Aramaic can be considered reliable.

I actually think that much of the New Testament does not translate very well into modern culture. Especially the parables of Jesus. I think much of the NT was written and belongs prior to AD70. This has led me to, and reinforced a more preterist, postmillenial type view obviously but I won't go into that here.

I believe that the simple genius of Jesus and his most basic ideas are evident despite whatever limitations may exist in the translations. There is no way that this can be hidden or lost because it is just as true as gravity or relativity and it is inseparable from our makeup as transcendent beings. Love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. And also that God has put eternity into the heart of man (OT).

I do not think that is it correct to lump the canonical writings of Judeao-Christianity with those of other religions or philosophies. In my understanding there is no comparison with any other work or author or religion regarding to the volume of work, the consistency of the work over time, or the effect on the world in general. If the value, truth, and consistency of the JC writings are not reliable then we can believe nothing that happened in the world before say 1850.

[AlphaBravo]

As I realized when I read Ottor PM I'm really going to have to read books on OT and NT codicology and paleography to get up to speed so-to-speak. Suggest we all do the same.

I agree.

[showmeproof]

I actually think that much of the New Testament does not translate very well into modern culture. Especially the parables of Jesus. I think much of the NT belongs in the first century prior to AD70. This has led me to, and reinforced a more preterist, postmillenial type view obviously but I won't go into that here.

I believe that the simple genius of Jesus and his most basic ideas are evident despite whatever limitations may exist in the translations. There is no way that this can be hidden or lost because it is just as true as gravity or relativity and it is inseparable from our makeup as transcendent beings. Love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. And also that God has put eternity into the heart of man (OT).

I do not think that is it correct to lump the canonical writings of Judeao-Christianity with those of other religions or philosophies. In my understanding there is no comparison with any other work or author or religion regarding to the volume of work, the consistency of the work over time, or the effect on the world in general. If the value, truth, and consistency of the JC writings are not reliable then we can believe nothing that happened in the world before say 1850.

Wow, you are sadly misinformed and are in for a shocker if you choose to broaden your horizons beyond JC.

[showmeproof]

Nowing next to nothing about this subject I consulted with a new TWebber who specializes in middle-Ages codicology and paleography. He also has studied and is studying OT codicology and paleography. These are the disciplins we should be talking about. Wether this is modern linguistic analysis or not I'm not sure but I doubt it.

It is much more complex to attempt translations from 2000 or more years ago.

I'll reproduce in part the PM from Otter:

"Long is the learning....

You definitely want to treat Biblical codicology and paleography differently than you do the medieval manuscripts... Some of the basic principles and vocabulary are the same, but Hebrew writing in particular poses some peculiar problems, and of course the habits of scribes are pretty idiosyncratic, enough so that we can often date paleography and pin it to a time and place.

I'm pretty conversant with the discipline in the medieval period, and an informed amateur in the biblical manuscripts.

Forgive me if I give you titles in short-form without links. I'm in a bit of a rush to get some grading done."

I'm currently reading a book which examines some of the Luke parables. Fascinating reading."

As I realized when I read Ottor PM I'm really going to have to read books on OT and NT codicology and paleography to get up to speed so-to-speak. Suggest we all do the same.

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov
The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmition, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.

Paleography is even more specialized.

[Xru]

Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible by Emanuel Tov
The Text of the New Testament; Its Transmition, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman.

Paleography is even more specialized.

Well thank you smp . . . you get 24hrs off the zipper-head list;)