Zeichman

Sorry. My sarcasm did not translate as hoped onto the interweb. Probably should have used a roll-eyes smiley. I'm with you on this one, spin.

Johann_Kaspar

So... what do you do about the walking on the sea? a magical event? :angel:

Steve Weiss

The fact that someone thinks that he is doing something truthful doesn't make it the truth. To relate hearsay as truth is deceitful and could easily qualify as propaganda, depending upon the intended use of the work. Since we don't even know who the authors of the NT are, with the possible exception of Paul, one can only guess how and why these stories were assembled into the book referred to as the bible.

Steve Weiss

One may not assume factuality; it has to be proven. If I say that aliens have landed in my backyard and they are now staying with me as guests and that they have revealed the secrets of the universe to me, it is up to me to prove that claim. You are under no obligation to believe it merely because I state it and believe it. In the case of the bible, we don't even know its authors, so there is no possibility of further investigation, and the content and characters are clearly imagined. I suggest that you look up the word "fiction" in Merriam Webster's online dictionary. It certainly applies to the bible.

spamandham

I never claimed a high degree of certainy. I'm arguing from my own perception of parsimony.

I'm not limiting the analysis to Biblical literature. Non-biblical texts, including nonreligious records, are important too. Granted, I admit I'm not an expert in any sense of the word, and certainly have not read all the available pertinant literature. But based on what I am familiar with, a mystical interpretation is justifiable from my perspective.

I'm not hopeful of much, but then in this situation, your hopes for your claimed tendentious manipulators seem even fainter.

I assumed you were familiar with it since you seemed to be claiming there were no fictional stories in the New Testament. My bad.

John 21:1-14 contains a story about some disciples fishing in a boat and having no luck. Jesus comes along and tells them to try again, but casting the net on the other size. The 'number of the fish' hauled in is 153.

The significance of this story, is that 153 is the mystical 'number of the fish' in Pythagorean tradition, related to the dimensions of the Vesica Pisces, which predates Christianity by half a millenium.

The idea that this story simply developed over time through mythmaking would be preposterous. The symbolism of the number 153 where it serves no mythical Christian purpose and of fish to the Vesica Pisces is remarkable. If this is not a solid case for a mystical work of fiction, nothing is.

mountainman

The bible was first "publicised" by the regime that first bound
the books (of the bible) together and had them published
circa 330 CE. Three decades later Julian calls it a fiction.

In some cases, of fiction, the authors may be determined
by their implication with the publication regime (and vice verse).
Dont rule out this possibility.

Steve Weiss

You have been conned and have fallen into the trap by being sent on a wild goose chase. You are under no obligation to prove fictionality of any source, just as one is under no obligation (rationally) to prove that a god does not exist. Every claim to factuality and truth must be properly verified, and until it is, one is logically justified in rejecting the claim as unworthy of consideration. To insist on an unestablished factuality is deceitful. Whims cannot be considered or assumed to be valid, the opposite is the case.

If one goes to an insurance company and claims that one had an accident that the insurance company should pay for, one has to present evidence of the accident and the damage. One has an investigation by an assessor, photos may be taken, repair estimates are made, and even three quotes may be required. Imagine the reaction of the insurance company if you show up claiming an accident for which you present no evidence. You could easily be charged with fraud, and that is exactly what the bible is.

spamandham

Steve, it seems to me you give no distinction to whether or not an author knew he was writing something false when you call it fiction. Is that a fair assessment?

spin

Which I haven't seen paraded.

This is unrelated to what you were commenting on. Our starting point for analysing biblical literature is umm, biblical literature. Then you spread out to related literature of the era -- and you have to relate it.

My comment is an attempt to understand what we are dealing with and that is a set of traditions which appear to us all well-formed. Our problem is to get back into the formative phase in order to grapple with that which you want to label fiction. Traditions can come from previous direct real world information, and then again it needn't. Our problem is to be able to discern what the sources are for those traditions. From my understanding a method of discernment hasn't been arrived at yet, so guesses based on parsimony are still simply guesses.

Plausibility, for that's what "justifiable" seems to hint at here, is not a sufficient criterion for anything in our discussion. Many works of fiction seek plausibility.

I lost the thread of where this comment of yours came from.

This number, 153, in no way plays an integral part to the discourse of the pericope. In fact leave out the aside and you woudn't notice it was missing. At what stage was it added to the tradition? Some analysts see chapter 21 of John as a redactional enlargement and strangely enough a book arrived which sees John as made up of two lots of material with two layers of redactional glue. Could it be that you are building a case on an inconsequential addition to a secondary redactional layer, an addition which is given no work or significance in the text? Could it be just another example of someone deciding at some late stage that it must have been 153 fish? Could it be that people are taking something and using eisegesis to make of the text something that was never intended?

I'm open to signs of text manipulation, as I have no commitment to the text's inherent veracity, unless I see something substantially more coherent on the matter, I'd just as soon as label stuff such as that on the wiki page for the 153 fish as nothing more than hyperactive wishful thinking.


spin

spin

There was no problem in what you said and smilie not really necessary. I was just being a little pedantic, because it reminded me so much of the logical positivism trap, hoist by one's own petard.


:angel: