mountainman

It is commonplace for people to place different meanings in different words
and consequently find difficulty in discussion due to these fundamental
terminological differences.

This is particularly important in specialised fields, where certain words
through use will evolve to mean something different that otherwise
generally expected outside that specialist field.

My question relates to the use of the three terms history, myth and
fiction as applied to the field of biblical studies. While the first two
terms are well established, it is clear than the third term "fiction" does
not enjoy the same establishment.

In an earlier thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=161405
I was berated by Peter Kirby as follows:

Despite Peter's assertion to the contrary, I do not view myself as
possessing any more pride or attention-seeking nature than the next
poster, and would like to request assistance to clarify this issue.

I have spent a great deal of time and effort and personal study over
a reasonable period investigating the elements of the history of antiquity
for the period from 0 to 300 CE. I can completely understand that others
have done the same, and in many cases, have devoted decades to this.
I am not coming at this forum in any ego-related sense, and am quite
amenable to the use of logic, which should take precedent in reason.

The inescapable logic of the situation appears to me to dictate the
fact that a theory of history in respect of antiquity (0-300 say) can
be classified as MORE than either historical or mythological. HJ and MJ
seems to be a stand-alone dichotomy without room for further options.

Yet logically, as generalists examining an overview of the possibilities
of the nature of the history of antiquity, we must allow for the possibility
of fiction as a separate and distinct animal than history or myth. This
is the claim I wish to explore.

I note that many veteran posters in BC&H refuse to type the word
FICTION as an overview description of a theory of history, however
they will countenance "small fictions" being enacted within the overall
scope of history (and/or myth) being played out.

Atwill's "Caesar's Messiah" is an example of another theory of the history
of antiquity (history of christianity) in which a fabricated FICTION takes
a reasonably central role in the theory. As such it is neither (classically)
a HJ or an MJ in general terms, but logically needs to be viewed as a
theory which countenances the implementation of a fiction.

Perhaps veteran posters in BC&H view Atwill's theory as being classified
with the MJ category, but if that is the case, is it only because there
has been only this binary dualistic classification of history or myth
available in a terminological sense. This is what I need to know.

I would ideally like to argue that the FJ category needs to be established
in the same manner as the MJ and HJ category of theories which relate to
the history of antiquity and christianity, and have attempted to do so in
other threads, but seem to be getting nowhere.

I have written all this because I understand the importance of terminology
at the basis of discussion in a forum such as this, but do not as yet
completely understand the history of the evolution of this seemingly
present dichotomy between History (HJ) and Myth (MJ).

Any advice on this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time,



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

Clivedurdle

I basically agree there should be these three classifications, and possibly others. Fiction is very different to myth.

Maybe a further classification of propaganda is required. Eusebius diddit or caesar diddit are both political - not fictional reasons. Nazarenus is probably fiction, MJ stuff may be more gnostic, alchemic, neo platonic.

HJ is also a misnomer because the classic xian perspective is hybrid - fully god fully man.

Ellegard is probably a rare example of truly historical!

Roger Pearse

In Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 12, drawing on the same usage in Plato, Laws and Republic, 'fiction' (pseudos) is used to refer to the poems containing Greek mythology as taught to children for educational purposes. Here at least the two terms seem to be used for the same thing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

Ok Star Trek (science fiction) has huge mythological elements, but it is a real distinction!