Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-09-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Given your ridiculous definition of fiction, you could proclaim almost anything you liked was fiction, so I don't think you really need to try to argue anything.

"[N]on-fiction" is not a genre, just as "non-detective" is not. In fact, fiction isn't a genre either.

With regard to Lewis we have both his own comments, comparable works and the content of his efforts to have some idea of his intent.

Most narrative literature is fiction, so fiction is the default. Its fiction unless you can verify that it true.

Utter rubbish. You are retrojecting your own desires into the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

The four basic genres are fiction, non-fiction, poetry and drama. Anyone who has taken any course in literature should know that.

Obviously you haven't. How would you categorize T.S. Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral"? Is it poetry, drama, fiction or non-fiction?

Banal oversimplifications are of little value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

The actual intent of C.S. Lewis is irrelevant for determining the genre of his works.

OK, how do you determine the genre of a work whose literary context you don't know -- without applying categories you don't know the relevance of in the writer's context?

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

All that matters is whether the person classifying one of his works believes that its fiction, non-fiction, poetry or drama based on the contents.

gen·re [zhahn-ruh; Fr. zhahn-ruh]
–noun
1. a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic music.
2. Fine Arts.

a. paintings in which scenes of everyday life form the subject matter.
b. a realistic style of painting using such subject matter.

3. genus; kind; sort; style.

Literary genres are just classifications or types of literature. If you have some literature that you want to classify then you just look through the existing definitions of genres (their attributes) and find the best fit. If there is a group of literature that does not fit well in any existing genre then you just make one up a new genre with attributes that generally fit the group – just like other classification scheme.

Where are you getting this stuff? Is there a Wiki for kids or something? Self reductio ad absurdum is no way to represent your ideas.

spin

phthenry · 03-09-2008, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by patcleaver View Post
The four basic genres are fiction, non-fiction, poetry and drama. Anyone who has taken any course in literature should know that.
Obviously you haven't. How would you categorize T.S. Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral"? Is it poetry, drama, fiction or non-fiction?

My background is in literature, and I have to agree that you cannot classify literature as patcleaver has. Some works don't fall neatly into these categories, there are more categories than 4, and at any rate, such simple classification servers no purpose.

spamandham · 03-09-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My position here is that it should be taken seriously, and investigated for its utility in explicating what we know of the first four centuries of the common era.

Well, if it's any consolation, I do take it seriously, even though most here reject it out of hand. I'm trying to find out what they know that I don't, ...or whether it's simply a matter of preference.

Personally, I have no stake in any of these positions, other than to try to understand what really happened. I'll even accept that Jesus was historical and was god if the evidence is sufficient.

Quote:

The claim at issue is the common characteristics of the historical lives of Paul and Apollonius, of which the claims (made by others) concerning the similarity of the names themselves is but one small and comparitively insignificant aspect.

...ok, but the radical position of Detering explains a linguistic relationship between Paul and Simon Magus, as well as a textual relationship (a noncanonical text that equates them...I'll go look it up if requested as I'm going from memory at present), as well as striking similarities in the characters. This seems a simpler connection than relating Paul to POL and subsequently Apollonius.

mountainman · 03-09-2008, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

The claim at issue is the common characteristics of the historical lives of Paul and Apollonius, of which the claims (made by others) concerning the similarity of the names themselves is but one small and comparitively insignificant aspect.

...ok, but the radical position of Detering explains a linguistic relationship between Paul and Simon Magus, as well as a textual relationship (a noncanonical text that equates them...I'll go look it up if requested as I'm going from memory at present), as well as striking similarities in the characters.

That would be Acts of Peter.

My thesis has it that this was written by an ascetic pagan
academic priest after 324 CE as a seditious polemic against
the Constantine Canon (published c.331 CE). The Boss had
flattened some of the ancient and revered temples to Asclepius,
executed the head priests as public examples of his intentions,
and prohibited temple services with effect from 324 CE.

Here are various summaries of the Acts of Peter:

Geoff Trowbridge:

Quote:

The Acts Of Peter (c. 150-200 C.E.) are generally regarded as the first of the apocryphal Acts, though scholars have previously argued for priority of John's or occasionally Paul's Acts. Modern scholarship tends to agree that Paul uses Peter, while Peter and John share a common origin. Authorship has thus been credited to Leucius, the companion of John who is also credited with the Acts of John. The surviving manuscripts are a long Latin text from Vercelli dating to the sixth century which comprises most of the Acts, and an earlier Greek text containing only the martyrdom, from which we derive the tradition that Peter was crucified upside-down. There are also secondary texts which contain parallel stories on the rather unpleasant theme of women welcoming paralysis rather than defiling their bodies with sexual relations. In a Coptic text included with the Nag Hammadi library, the female in question is Peter's daughter. Ironically, despite these encratite views of sex and marriage, much of the Acts of Peter are spent denouncing the gnostic teacher Simon Magus who undoubtedly shared the same views. The Acts of Peter were judged as heretical by Eusebius and the Gelasian Decree. Peter performs many miracles in the Acts, from talking dogs and infants to the resurrection of both people and smoked fish. Rome is the primary setting, and possibly the place of authorship.

M.R. James:

Quote:

From "The Apocryphal New Testament", Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Written, probably by a resident in Asia Minor (he does not know much about Rome), not later than A. D. 200, in Greek. The author has read the Acts of John very carefully, and modelled his language upon them. However, he was not so unorthodox as Leucius, though his language about the Person of our Lord (ch. xx) has rather suspicious resemblances to that of the Acts of John. The length of the book as given by the Stichometry of Nicephorus was 2,750 lines-fifty lines less than the canonical Acts. The portions we have may be about the length of St. Mark's Gospel; and about 1,000 lines may be wanting. Such is Zaha's estimate. We have:

1. A short episode in Coptic. - This is preserved separately in an early papyrus manuscript (fourth-fifth century) now at Berlin; the other contents of it are Gnostic writings which have not yet been published. I follow C. Schmidt's rendering of it. It has a title at the end: The Act of Peter. See the separate article The Act of Peter.
2. A large portion in Latin preserved in a single manuscript of the seventh century at Vercelli: often called the Vercelli Acts. It includes the martyrdom.
3. The martyrdom, preserved separately, in two good Greek copies, in Latin, and in many versions-Coptic, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian, Arabic, Ethiopic.
4. One or two important quotations from lost portions; a small fragment of the original in a papyrus; certain passages-speeches of Peter- transferred by an unscrupulous writer to the Life of St. Abercius of Hierapolis.
5. A Latin paraphrase of the martyrdom, attributed to Linus, Peter's successor in the bishopric of Rome, was made from the Greek, and is occasionally useful.

Robert F. Stoops:

Quote:

writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 267): One of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles, the Acts of Peter reports a miracle contest between Simon Magus and the apostle Peter in Rome. It concludes with Peter's martyrdom. The Acts of Peter was originally composed in Greek during the second half of the 2d century, probably in Asia Minor. The majority of the text has survived only in the Latin translation of the Vercelli manuscript. The concluding chapters are preserved separately as the Martyrdom of Peter in three Greek manuscripts and in Coptic (fragmentary), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

One of the earliest of the apocryphal acts of the apostles, the Acts of Peter reports a miracle contest between Simon Magus and the apostle Simon Peter in Rome. The majority of the text has survived only in the Latin translation of the Vercelli manuscript. The Acts of Peter was originally composed in Greek during the second half of the 2nd century, probably in Asia Minor. Consensus amongst academics points to it being based on the Acts of John, and traditionally both that and this work were said to be written by Leucius Charinus, whom Epiphanius identifies as the companion of John. In the text Peter performs miracles such as resurrecting smoked fish, and making dogs talk. The text condemns Simon Magus, a senior figure associated with gnosticism, who appears to have concerned the writer of the text greatly. Some versions give accounts of stories on the theme of a woman/women who prefer paralysis to sex, sometimes, including in a version from the Berlin Codex, the woman is the daughter of Peter. It concludes describing Peter's martyrdom as upside-down crucifixion, a tradition that is first attested in this work. These concluding chapters are preserved separately as the Martyrdom of Peter in three Greek manuscripts and in Coptic (fragmentary), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions. Because of this, it is sometimes proposed that the martyrdom account was the original text to which the preceding chapters were affixed.

Quote:

This seems a simpler connection than relating Paul to POL and subsequently Apollonius.

Apollonius is calumnified in many books by Eusebius.
Apollonius was known to have frequented the temple
of Ascelpius at Aegae (see Robert Lane-Fox) and this
temple was subject to major destruction by the Boss
as soon as he had secured the east in 324 CE.

We have a heavy political situation.
Eusebius is a bombastic propagandist.

My bet is that Paul was written in to the NT as a wandering
man and philosopher of letters, due to the popular traditions
and memory of the sage Apollonius. The historian Ammianus
mentions Apollonius favorably, as do later writers.

Thanks for the open mind man.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 03-09-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The claim at issue is the common characteristics of the historical lives of Paul and Apollonius, of which the claims (made by others)

One other -- and a certified (and Greekess) crank, at that.

Quote:

concerning the
similarity of the names themselves is but one small and comparitively insignificant aspect.

So you now say.

Was POL a recognized abbreviation for Apollonius or not?

Jeffrey

Your man Jesus H and your man Paul were composite and fictional christian literary abbreviations of the ancient memory of the historical neopythagorean sage and author Apollonius of Tyana.

Any coincidence of recognition between the name POL and PAUL is an entirely coincidental claim to the major issue, for which I have supplied references, from which I refuse to be swayed, and to which you fail to address any comments.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Ted Hoffman · 03-10-2008, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spandaman

Why do you believe that the fraud was wholesale, rather than simply modifying things here and there to fold Sol Invictus and Apollonius into pre-existing traditions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

Step (1) - Simple logic.

The big question asked here is: "What if the history is fiction?"

This is a red herring Mountainman. You have not answered the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

The big question asked here is: "What if the history is fiction?" The answer to this question is explored by means of making a simple postulate, namely suppose the history is in fact fiction. Logically, if the Eusebian history is false, there are at least six very specific implications.

This is attempting to draw a target where an arrow has hit: you are approaching the texts with a prior commitment to a theory. I can also ask:

The big question asked here is: "What if George Bush has an ant up his nose?" The answer to this question is explored by means of making a simple postulate, namely suppose the ant is in fact up his nose. Logically, if the ant is up his nose, there are at least six very specific implications.

I think you can tell that this is manure. Its building speculation upon speculation. You dont start with a speculation then seek interelated speculations to support the initial speculation.

Quote:

An Alternative History

The first implication of the postulate is that there must exist another theory of history with a far greater integrity for the period, and perhaps quite different than the theory of history presented by Eusebius. For the exercise, this is to be called "reality".

Conjoin of Eusebian and Real History

The second implication is that there must exist a point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality". That is, the fictitious theory of history must have been physically inserted into "reality" at some stage, or point in time.

This is true for any speculation, including the claim that Jesus was in India or Jesus' girlfriend was Mary Magdalane.

Quote:

Conjoin of Pseudo-History to History has a Precedent date

The third implication is that this point in time at which the historical fiction is conjoined with "reality" must necessarily be - at the earliest - either during, or after, the life of the author of the fiction. Eusebius the author completes his work at some time prior to the Council of Nicea, in 325 CE.

Same as above: the fictitious work must be published for it to enter the public consciousness. And the author must exist for him to do his job. Its like saying that the ant must be less than a centimeter wide for it to be up the nose of George Bush. I think this is what is called blather.

Quote:

Turbulent controversy is to be expected

The fourth implication of the postulate is that this point in "reality" at which the fiction was implemented, would necessarily be associated with possibly massive social turbulence. People would be bound to notice the change in their history books, and possibly overnight. The Arian controversy and heresy is here cited and analysed with a new perspective.

Is Aryan controversy about history or about theology? There were several controversies including the trinity and the perpetual virginity of Mary, Christology (adoptionism, resurrectionism etc). Controversy alone doesnt mean squat. There is still controversy over whether George Bush beat Al Gore. That does not mean Al Gore won. The devil is in the details. No details, no theory.

Quote:

Success of Initiative depended on a party with great power

The fifth implication of the postulate is that because of the possibly massive social turbulence associated with the actual implementation of the fiction, a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear, by the party responsible for the implementation of the fiction. The supreme imperial commander of the Roman Empire, Constantine I, is cited and his involvement in the establishment of the Nicean Council, for the express purpose of containing the Arian controversy (heresy) is cited and detailed.

What do you mean by "social turbulence?" Does power have to be vested in an individual or party for it to engender change? What about economic and social forces? What about ethnic myths? Was the French Revolution characterized by social turbulence? What about the implementation of communism? And Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent movement? Was he a rich and powerful party in power Which parties in power "implemented" the fiction called circumcision? Which parties in power implemented the fiction that men should have short hair and women have long hair?
You need to illustrate that "a great degree of power would be needed to be brought to bear" for any idea involving great social change to be implemented. Provide examples that support your hypothesis, then show how that supports your thesis. Dont just draw targets where the historical arrows fell.

Quote:

We refer to the words of Arius, preserved as a disclaimer.
The words of the Emporor Julian (fiction)
The words revealed by Nestorius on "common belief".(fiction)
The words of the anathemas of 4th/5th century councils.
(ie: what was public opinion against the chruch dogma?)

There are people who believed Capitalism is fiction. It doesnt mean squat. You need historical evidence to deal with history, not controversy. Controversy is evidence of controversy, not evidence of a historical claim. And you still have not shown that the controversy was on historical issues. If they were regarding historical issues, list these historical issues people were fighting over. Please be clear. List them.
Controversial arguments like Pol/Paul/Apollos/Apollonius are tangential. Let us see historical issues and historical arguments because yours is a historical argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

Now the logic of the situation is this. If the postulate that Eusebius wrote fiction is actually false (as the mainstream presently claim) why do we find ample evidence of the occurrence of the above six implications of the Eusebian fiction postulate being true? In other words, if the Eusebian fiction postulate were not true, we should not expect to find evidence for its implications ... yet, I find such.)

The postulate is poorly framed and ill conceived.
Secondly, all religions have controversies. IIRC, Islam has over 50 sects. It does not mean squat. Controversy and religion are strange bedfellows. You better come to terms with that.

You have not listed what we would actually find if the Eusebian fiction postulate were false. You have only negated what we would find if the postulate were true. And these alone are ill-conceived because some of them would be observed irrespective of whether the postulate were true or false.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-10-2008, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

One other -- and a certified (and Greekess) crank, at that.

So you now say.

Was POL a recognized abbreviation for Apollonius or not?

Jeffrey

Your man Jesus H and your man Paul were composite and fictional christian literary abbreviations of the ancient memory of the historical neopythagorean sage and author Apollonius of Tyana.

So you keep saying -- without anything to back it up accpet appeal to the work of a crank scholar and some unspported claims about how names were pronounced.

Quote:

Any coincidence of recognition between the name POL and PAUL is an entirely coincidental claim to the major issue, for which I have supplied references, from which I refuse to be swayed, and to which you fail to address any comments.

But I didn't ask anything about what you identify as a "coincidental claim", let alone about PAUL and POL.

I asked about the claim that POL was a known and recognized abbreviation of the name Apollonius.

Is it or isn't it?

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver · 03-10-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In which century do you think the NT was written?

Some in the first century, the rest in the second, not counting interpolations, redactions, and other revisions that might have continued into the third century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

All I am doing is pointing out noone knows the answer to this question for sure yet.

If we must be certain of an answer for it to be an answer, then few if any questions have answers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The question is not answered!

Not to your satisfaction, obviously.

Gamera · 03-10-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The ethics of historians didn't really exist in antiquity, so your suspicion of Eusebius is equally applicable to every ancient historical text.

It's impossible to name any ancient historian who didn't have an obvious political or personal agenda. Indeed, it's impossible to name a contemporary one who doesn't.

Why dont they teach this sort of stuff in theological college?

They do. No credible historian of antiquity or the NT, who teaches Tacitus fails to mention is deeply embedded personal and political agenda, not to mention the fact that his histories follow literary forms. That doesn't mean what he writes is "false;" it means that like all histories Tacitus' works are complex literary constructions embedded in a political and cultural contexts, not a recitations of facts.

No modern theological tradition is unaware of this same process happening in the NT.

The fact that you are unaware of this speaks volumes.

Gamera · 03-10-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

So tell us what the Agricola is? Apologia or history? Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War? Suetonius, The Life of Nero? Anything by Josephus.

The categories you have invented are meaningless in antiquity.

Since when was external credible non-apologetic sources categorised as meaningless?

Since they don't exist.

The fact that you can't answer my question indicates such.

So I'll repeat it: Agricola -- apologia or history? Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War? Suetonius, The Life of Nero? Anything by Josephus.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.