Biff the unclean

Sorry, was called away there.
When the Hopis or Homer take an historic event and run with the story, changing it with supernatural trappings and adding traditional character figures they are doing exactly the same thing that writers of "historic fiction" do today. They are trurning events into fiction. That one writer should sit down at her typewriter and pound out "Gone With the Wind" while generations of South West Indians change the story of another battle organically, a little at a time, the end result is the same. Not to call it fiction is misleading because while the story may once have been based on fact these facts have been fictionalized by the author(s)

sharon45

Ok, by your definition, christianity and the bible are indeed fiction as I've already said many times.

NobleSavage

Exactly!

NobleSavage

Yes, if an individual undertakes a rigorous five year Ph.D program in alchemy, that includes courses on history, philosophy, linguistics, culture, music, etc, I'm sure they are qualified to talk about alchemy. However, that does not mean that we should confer any respect on the academic merit of an alchemists opinion.

That is not a valid comparison. An aerospace engineer doesn't claim to know how to fabricate a computer chip; an electrical engineer doesn't try and design airplanes. If you ask a electrical engineer about a matter of aerodynamics they would probably say that they are not qualified to answer such a question. Try asking a Baptist theologian what he/she thinks of Islam. What do you think the answer would be: (a) I'm not qualified on matters of Islam; or (b) they worship a false profit and will burn in hell?

A Jesuit theologian believes that his or her Lutheran counterpart is mistaken. Theological opinions are exclusive by their nature(except for maybe a Unitarian Universalist). -- they make claims for the same domain of knowledge. If one claims to know "the truth" for a particular field I think they should be intimately familiar with the entire domain.

What's the difference between a bunch of children hunting for Easter eggs and apologists apologizing? The Easter eggs usually exist. What seminary does not require a solid grounding in apologetics?

So what?

I don't see why they should be given any academic respect. Further, I think it devalues academia to put a theologian on the same platform as someone who has a degree in religious studies, the classics, or the humanities.

NS

Goliath

Absolutely agreed...furthermore, I'd add mathematics and the sciences to the list at the end.

Sincerely,

Goliath

LP675

yes

ManM

If someone studies the history of alchemy, they have academic merit when discussing the history of alchemy. You may think the field is hogwash, but you should still respect the opinions of those in that field when they are in their domain.

As an electrical engineer myself, I can honestly say that many electrical engineers do have an opinion when it comes to other fields. You ask an electrical engineer about an airplane, and chances are he will start drawing schematics on the closest thing he can find. But this is really beside the point. If you are interested in learning about Islam, you would go to an Islamic theologian, not a Baptist one. Theologians are specialists and should be recognized as such.

This trait is not limited to theologians. Historians have conflicting interpretations of the same events. Philosophers hold different opinions in all the subdivisions of their field. The problem is that you do not understand the difference between the theologian and the student of religious studies. The theologian studies a highly specialized subset of religious studies. In their field of study, they should be given the credit they are due.

Holy Cross.

A theologian discussing his subject will run circles around a person with a degree in religious studies. You only devalue them because they specialize in a subject you disagree with.

Brother Daniel

Interesting idea: to disagree with a subject.

I often disagree with opinions. I often disagree with (alleged) facts. I'm not sure what it means to disagree with a subject.

BDS

The differentiation between myth and legend is a modern one; those who tell and listen to the stories generally make no such distinction (although they do differentiate between some other forms of oral literature and what we would call "myth" and "legend", but which they would call by a word which would perhaps be best translated as "history").

Historical novelists intentionally invent incidents and characters, which they set against a historical background. Homer did not "invent" Achilles. Achilles was a character in many, many stories which pre-date Homer, and he quite likely was a real person. Same with King Arthur. Same with Moses. In that, they are all quite different from Prince Andrei, or Scarlett Ohara. Even if we assume that the characters never really existed (which I would not assume), they were still not the "inventions" of one author, but evolved over generations, as a sort of collective invention of many authors.

Biff the unclean

The differentiation between myth and legend is a modern one; I probably make it because I live in the present day.

Historical novelists intentionally invent incidents and characters, which they set against a historical background. Homer did not "invent" Achilles. Achilles was a character in many, many stories which pre-date Homer, and he quite likely was a real person.
One of the things that distinguish an historical novel is that actual historic personages are included. My wife is addicted to a series of mystery books by Stephanie Barron in which Jane Austen is a detective. Jane Austen of these books is a fictional character even though there was an actual Jane Austen. Same goes for Achilles. There may well have been an actual Achilles as you said. But the Iliad is really nothing more than a historical novel that the patina of time has added glamour to. Homer's superhero, Achilles, is as fictional a character as Barron's detective Austen.
These characters are the inventions of an author (or series of authors, like with the Hardy Boys & Nancy Drew...I don't credit "evolving" over generations of authors as making something less fictional. If anything all of those added imaginations make the character more fictional). That the author, for whatever reasons, based their fictional character on a living person and gave the character the same name as the actual person, it does not make the character non-fiction.
When Robert E. Lee says, "Why Scarlet O'Hara, I do declare that is the most beautiful gown I've ever seen" "Why, thank you General, it's just a little something I saw in the window" that Robert E. Lee is fictional.