Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 01-09-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

I made the connection with the document "containing history" or being "based on history" precisely because I assumed a historical narrative would have to be one of those things. Are you saying that a document written as historical narrative need not contain any history or be based on history?

Yes.

Quote:

great. so?

It negates your argument. If it largely wasn't seen as history, then poof goes your argument about Genesis.

Quote:

Do you really not understand that sentence? :huh:

No, I understand it perfectly. I was asking you for specifics. Thus, who did what when and for how long?

Quote:

The point is the ancient beliefs about the intent of a passage (in this context, its role as historical narrative) provide no evidence that the author actually had the same intent.

You're partially right. It doesn't always. Take, for example, Orson Wells and the alien landings. It can happen. But when it is unanimously taken as history immediately following its circulation, that's a big clue. Livy was taken for history...Petronius was not. Tacitus was taken for history...Apuleius was not. The ancients also recognized different forms of history. Livy was not the same as Ennius was not the same as Homer.

Quote:

I did and noted that you invented the straw man accusation for your own convenience.

What convenience? It's a strawman plain and simple. Even in your trick clarification ("Are you saying...") in which you tried to get me to say, "No, of course I wasn't saying," you forgot that yes, that is what I am saying.

Quote:

Actually I'm not persuaded that they were entirely wrong. I'm pointing out that their beliefs about Mark's intent don't provide any evidence that they were right.

So...that no one thought that Superman actually existed isn't evidence that Stan Lee wrote fiction? What basis do you state this? A hypothetical "they could be wrong" seems to be grasping for straws.

Joe Banks · 01-09-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

I made the connection with the document "containing history" or being "based on history" precisely because I assumed a historical narrative would have to be one of those things. Are you saying that a document written as historical narrative need not contain any history or be based on history?

Yes.

Then what is the difference between a historical narrative and a fictional narrative?

Solitary Man · 01-09-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Yes.

Then what is the difference between a historical narrative and a fictional narrative?

Essentially...intent.

Dogfish · 01-10-2008, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

Then what is the difference between a historical narrative and a fictional narrative?

Essentially...intent.

So, if you really WANT fiction to be true, you can say it is?

Ben C Smith · 01-10-2008, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Banks

Wasn't the OT also treated as history? I am thinking of Genesis particularly. The ancient interpreters regarded it as historical for hundreds of years right?

We have no contemporary or near contemporary evidence for how Genesis was received in its own time. Genres and genre markers change. Genesis may have been written as pure story and then interpreted hundreds of years later as pure history.

This is why I stressed that Matthew, Luke, John, and Papias are (near) contemporaries of Mark.

Ben.

Malachi151 · 01-10-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

My 2 cents:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Interesting. I ordered your book this morning.

Thanks, I hope you enjoy it. It hasn't been reviewed on lulu yet, so feel free

WishboneDawn · 01-10-2008, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

My 2 cents:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Now that is a neat idea. It's one of those that almost seems obvious in retrospect.

I haven't ordered a copy but will when I have the funds!

Solitary Man · 01-10-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Essentially...intent.

So, if you really WANT fiction to be true, you can say it is?

Who said anything about truth? This is still the same tired strawman. If I write a book that has no history in it but I call it a history and truly believe it's history, then it's not "fiction", because it lacks the entertainment value defined by "fiction", it's just bad history.

Clivedurdle · 01-10-2008, 12:38 PM

What RG Price is arguing is exactly what I was taught by pentecostal preachers for many years - and they directly quote Psalms Hosea Amos etc to support Mark. These are all cross referenced for example in Dake.

The difference? They take it as evidence of Jesus fulfilling prophecy and rejoice about it!

But which way round should we look at Mark?

Clivedurdle · 01-10-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

So, if you really WANT fiction to be true, you can say it is?

Who said anything about truth? This is still the same tired strawman. If I write a book that has no history in it but I call it a history and truly believe it's history, then it's not "fiction", because it lacks the entertainment value defined by "fiction", it's just bad history.

No history and bad history are not equivalent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2008, 12:38 PM	#39
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What RG Price is arguing is exactly what I was taught by pentecostal preachers for many years - and they directly quote Psalms Hosea Amos etc to support Mark. These are all cross referenced for example in Dake. The difference? They take it as evidence of Jesus fulfilling prophecy and rejoice about it! But which way round should we look at Mark?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.