Doug Shaver

That is the issue under question, is it not? We don't actually know whether anybody in antiquity questioned it. All we know about what they did or did not question is in a handful of documents (none of them original) that were preserved from antiquity.

Certain of those documents tell a story about a charismatic Jewish preacher who got himself executed. For most of the past 2,000 years, most people have presumed that those stories were about a real Jewish preacher who got himself executed. The only point I was making was that if this presumption happens to have been a mistake, it is not a mistake that is inconsistent with human nature as we now understand it, and that furthermore we have no good reason to think human nature was, in that respect, any different 2,000 years ago. People read fiction now and think it is true. We have no reason think people in those days were any less likely to do so.

Solo

Seems like you just fell into the trap that Ted set up for you, Earl ----- you are arguing from "silence"

That is not what Ted has been doing. He has pointed out Paul's contrasting men's wisdom vs. the wisdom of God imparted on pneumatics like himself. And it is very clear that the passage directly informs and binds 1 Cr 2:6-8.

"Men" in 1 Cr 1:18-31 is obviously not restricted to apostles opposing Paul. It means at minimum "Jews" and "Greeks" (22), i.e. targets of the Jesus proselythizing, both Paul's and that of his competitors.

That is possible but if there was an additional "meaning" to wisdom that Paul wanted to introduce, he would certainly have left a trace stronger than an one ambivalent phrase (rulers of the age), of which you have taken a view that noone else does.

Surely did, Earl. But where ? Let me guess: at the verse 2:8 ?


Arguing from silence again, are you ? :wave:

Jiri

TedM

I never made any such claims. You may need to read my post several times if you think that is my "logic".


I said no such thing. You again are twisting my words.

In this passage we have no reason to use the qualifier "bulk". ALL references that are clear in the entire passage are to humans.


Yes, it's possible. The context does not support it however. It ONLY supports the idea of human wisdom.


Weak argument.


Good point. However, my analysis is all about the CONTEXT in which we find the passage in question. No other demons are referred to anywhere in it. That GREATLY reduces the likelihood that demons are what Paul had in mind, in terms of the context of the entire passage.

What's obvious is that if it does mean "demons" it sticks out like a sore thumb, and introduces a new concept out of the blue in the passage, and with no follow up comments. Rather the follow-up verse works against the "demon" interpretation.


It doesn't take any special thinking or skill to recognize that his verse example doesn't apply well to the demons. If he used a verse in such a poor manner and couldn't find a more appropriate one that discusses how lacking in wisdome the demons in the parallel universe nailing Jesus to a cross were, then he could have easily bridged the gap between such a wild claim and the verse that more appropriately applied to all the men (not demons) he had mentioned time and again up until that point in the passage. It's HIGHLY awkward to reconcile your explanation with Paul's writing.


Your "possibility" is not very sensible to me given the context.


Thanks for the reply. Good luck on your second edition.

ted

Gamera

The OP topic is silences in this position. The OP points out that Doherty argues that various silences weaken the historicist position. I think I and others have shown that using that standard, various silences also weaken the mythicist position.

So the mythicists won't win on the issue of silences. It's time they turn to the next issue.

Gamera

I don't think the genres of history and historical fiction are in doubt. And I think most readers with any sophistication know the difference by the end of page one.

Further I am flabbergasted that any person would seek out historical knowledge in an historical fiction. I doubt anybody does; and I suspect those who pushed the issue simply let their arguments run away with themselves.

Somebody then raised the issue of "historical fiction" that pretends to be history. I pointed out that this is an imitation of historiography, not historiography, and gave examples. Whether you call it historical imitation or fakery hardly matters. The point is it can be discerned to be imitation, usually by checking the sources. In the case of the Irving biography, the author relied on the unavailability of the source to make his scam work, but unfortunately, Hughes didn't oblige.

Gamera

The only ignorant position on this thread is the position that you have apparently taken, and that is that ANYBODY would seek historical knowledge in an historical fiction.

Why don't you just admit that you let your argument run away with itself and we'll forgive you.

I do know that no historical knowledge should be sought in an historical knowledge. Now, which persons are historical in antiquity is a different topic, and a rather complex textual one, involving historical texts (not historical fiction)

Again, the only indefensible position here is yours: Really, I never seek historical knowledge in historical fiction. I'm surprised you do. But the fact that you do adds nothing to this conversation.

Amaleq13

My position is that your claim to be able to identify whether a character is fiction or historical without any research is complete bullshit. That you've done nothing to suggest otherwise and your desperate attempts to distract, create strawmen, and shift the burden only serve to support my position.

That you continue to deny that historical information can be found in historical fiction is simply astounding. What the hell do you think the "historical" refers to? :banghead:

Who is "we"? The other members who have chimed in on this sub-topic have appeared to agree with me. Your position appears to be unique to you. That should be a warning flag.



It is incredibly simple to demonstrate that historical fiction can and does contain actual history and there is nothing "indefensible" about my doubts regarding your alleged ability. It is only your alleged ability that is plainly ridiculous and indefensible.

But feel free to continue to make yourself look more foolish. It is somewhat entertaining.

Solo

Gentlemen, gentlemen....no need for this; let's settle this dispute in a scholarly manner.

You see, I have another strange hobby, which revolves around certain aspects of the U.S. social history of the 19th and 20th century (can't say what because it would blow my cover). I am utterly fascinated by a minor historical character, which to my surprise, no-one seems to have clued in on and who remains virtually unknown, even though (s)he was a frankly unbelievable character and a household name on the East Coast of the U.S. for more than a decade.

Now, here are two samples from two books dealing with the person in question - the first page of the first chapter in each, and I will ask Gamera to show us some of his divining powers to tell us what genre they are and what historical value there is in each.

BTW, I have changed the proper names in the samples so as not to give too much away. In everything else the text is faithfully reproduced:

So dear Gamera, what literary genre would you assign the two texts and which of them would be, in your opinion, more historically trustworthy and why ? Pray tell.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

You have tried to show that.

EarlDoherty

Sorry, Jiri, but you don’t seem to understand what the argument from silence is. In fact, it is Ted who is using it. He argues in preceding and succeeding posts that he knows Paul is not referring to demon spirits because he doesn’t clearly spell it out, or refer to demon spirits in other parts of the passage. I, in response, have endeavored to explain why that particular argument from silence is invalid (which doesn’t make them all invalid), I am not using an argument from silence myself.

It looks, Jiri, like you fell into the trap of your own ignorance, or your impetuous need to jump sneeringly on anything mythicist without thinking things through.

It would have been better if you had actually demonstrated that last statement, especially in light of my counter-arguments that it is anything but clear and that there is a perfectly arguable alternative.

And you are again arguing from ignorance. It is hardly a mere question of silence. You are surely aware that the Hebrew scriptures contain nothing about any demon spirits as found in Christian and contemporary writings. This silence in the scriptures is because the latter kind of belief in demons did not arise until the intertestamental period. In going to scripture, Paul had no choice but to offer a sacred verse which only referred to men.

I can only assume that the little waving smilie you attached to your comment represents yourself calling out in distress for want of a bit more substance and understanding, as well as a bit more spirit of inquiry, to contribute to the proceedings.

When people like yourself argue out of ignorance or rank misunderstanding (let alone obvious prejudice), it is still difficult not to feel compelled to answer. You have added your own demonstration to my complaint that it is too much of a time-wasting exercise on my part to be involved in this discussion board.

Earl Doherty