The Bible is Rediculous!

[_The Nehor]

So, am I to understand that Google is the best you've got here?

No, you're not to understand that. You are to understand that if I can Google it and get extracts from debates there are tons out there. As I don't have access to the articles I'd need it's also all I can do.

Also: you're going to have to cough up a verbatim quote from me where I said, "There is no debate concerning the Intentional Fallacy."

Here comes the backpedaling. Oh, this is so nice. I promised myself I wouldn't bring up the debate about the general inapplicability of the Intentional Fallacy until Page 10 but it was just too tempting. Your argument has always been that my understanding was fallacious because the Intentional Fallacy was generally applicable and almost universally accepted. It's not and it's not.

The real issue here has been your naïve claim that the Fallacy isn't applicable to historical texts.

As someone who does not understand the current scholarship on the Fallacy and the debate as to whether it should be used I hardly think you qualify as someone familiar enough with the subject to judge whether my claim is naïve.

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your assertion.

What assertion? That the Intentional Fallacy is in debate and probably on the way out. Come now Scratch. Why do I have to do your homework for you?

To suggest that there is no such debate is ridiculous. To obscure the fact that the Intentional Fallacy is on it's way out.

Then cite the scholarship. (And no, The Nehor. I don't consider punching something into Google to be "scholarship.")

[/quote]

I don't have easy access to University libraries and anything I find on the web (my only realistic method of conveying information to you) you'll call a Google search. Nice way to cripple anything I could do Scratchie.

Your entire argument hinged on you calling my argument fallacious on this basis. You have refused my repeated requests for you to show it being used on documents such as the Bible. You fall flat when I point out the Fallacy you're using is falling out of favor. May want to bow out now Scratch.

I'm done until I see something that shows that scholars would back you up in calling my argument fallacious in this way. Otherwise this thread will balloon to twenty pages with us dancing back and forth without saying much (like most of the rest of this thread).

[_Gadianton]

N,

Every time DCP or other senior apologists make points about "filtering" a text through a "cultural lens," which they seem to do more and more, they put you in an apologetic minority on this point. My only objection to Scratch in this thread is he is using his resources to counter an argument that's pretty much representative of one jr. apologist.

[_Calculus Crusader]

CC--- What is your reason for viewing the Bible as a literal text?

Here is a representative sample:

Luke1

1Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah...


Luke 2

2In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Luke 3

3In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

Not one of those is comparable to the New Testament, of course.

They're all texts. If you'd care to delineate the differences, I'm all ears.

Your inability to distinguish among texts of different types and milieux is noted. Unlike the New Testament, none of the texts you cited claims to be a historical account. All three are known fiction.

[Guest]

Yes, I know this is rather an Appeal to Authority, but...this is my area of scholarly expertise. My doctoral work is in critical theory (a bit more wide ranging than strictly "literary" theory, since I also studied a great deal of philosophy, sociology and marxist cultural theory as well as the postmodern "canon"), much of my scholarly writing is in this field, and all the courses I teach, in one way or another, are refracted through the prism of theory.

I am reminded of that scene from History of the World where Mel Brooks applies for unemployment and Bea Arthur asks him what he does. After a detailed explanation she says, "Oh, you're a bull****ter." I'm afraid there is no nice way to say this but I think your advanced degree in "critical theory" is as useful and relevant as an advanced degree in Mormon Scripture.

As for the history of historical fiction...uh, its probably the oldest form of storytelling. The modern invention of the phrase may date to the early 19th century (and is connected to the birth of the novel as a western genre), you'd have to place works like Hamlet or the Odyssey in its ranks, not to mention "historical' writing like Livy's history of Rome (which places "myth" and what Nehor calls "fact" on equal footing). Of course, there are multiple traditions around the globe and some "modern" western inventions are predated by similar forms centuries elsewhere.

Hamlet is too late to be relevant to this discussion. As for the Odyssey, if it were "historical" fiction, then Ancient Greek authors would not have spilled so much ink vainly trying to place it in a historical setting. The best they could accomplish was essentially, "A long time ago in a land far far away..."

[_Calculus Crusader]

Required reading for pomos:

Sokal Affair

[_Calculus Crusader]

The pomos in the thread can take a break and let the Postmodernism Generator take over for them.

[_Thama]

I'm afraid there is no nice way to say this but I think your advanced degree in "critical theory" is as useful and relevant as an advanced degree in Mormon Scripture.

But a degree in "real" scripture would be so much more useful.

[_Blixa]

Two quick comments then I'm back to work:

Nehor: the issue of authorial intent is embedded in the argument that textual meaning is not found "in" a text, but it the codes through which it is read. I thought you would understand that. And while academic fads come and go, usually swayed by the vagaries of market demands (now currently in free fall), it would be premature to claim that there is some wholesale resuscitation of so-called "traditional" biography based scholarship. That predates even New Criticism, itself well before the late influx of "theory" into American institutions. And, Barthes and Foucault notwithstanding, study of biography has never disappeared, but has itself, rather, had its own negotiations with "theory," some very fruitful indeed.

For CC. Well my degree has stood me in good stead: tenure, a decent salary, congenial colleagues world-wide, invitations to speak and publish internationally in a variety of venues. While the bulk of my teaching is literature and film, a discipline that forced me to learn a great deal about philosophy, history and economics has been extraordinarily intellectually satisfying and continues to lead me to increasingly creative work. I'm currently working on projects in design, cultural memory studies, asian-american history, photography (both as art practice and its early technical use in forensics), intellectual property disputes, the historical novel, public art and monuments (and monumental art). I'm consulting with a friend in the fashion industry about my knowledge of fabrics used in early mountaineering gear, and helping another friend design a retrospective of his photography for a museum in France (this involves introducing him to digital archival research). I also keep up with an extensive correspondence with former students (some I've known for over 20 years) writing letters of recommendation, advising them on school/work, and doing charity editing of some of their articles and manuscripts. The worst I could say about "critical theory" is that it has encouraged me to indulge in too broad a range of interests. At least for someone without a full-time office staff.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So, am I to understand that Google is the best you've got here?

No, you're not to understand that. You are to understand that if I can Google it and get extracts from debates there are tons out there. As I don't have access to the articles I'd need it's also all I can do.

Thanks, that's what I thought. You're relying wholly on Google to make claims about scholarship. It's been duly noted.

Also: you're going to have to cough up a verbatim quote from me where I said, "There is no debate concerning the Intentional Fallacy."

Here comes the backpedaling. Oh, this is so nice. I promised myself I wouldn't bring up the debate about the general inapplicability of the Intentional Fallacy until Page 10 but it was just too tempting. Your argument has always been that my understanding was fallacious because the Intentional Fallacy was generally applicable and almost universally accepted. It's not and it's not.

Where did I say that? First of all, it *is* "generally applicable." Secondly, I would never say it's "universally accepted." Pretty early on, in fact, I pointed out that historians often dislike its implications.

You seem to not even understand what's being debated.

The real issue here has been your naïve claim that the Fallacy isn't applicable to historical texts.

As someone who does not understand the current scholarship on the Fallacy

So says the guy who doesn't even have the articles in front of him! Let me remind you that the last actual citation you offered up countered your own argument. You are so naïve and out of your element that your own sources are destroying your argument! For heaven's sake, The Nehor, one of your links is to a book dealing with how the I.F. applies to legal texts and documents! You are so far out of your element that it's laughable. Again: did you even read any of your links?

and the debate as to whether it should be used I hardly think you qualify as someone familiar enough with the subject to judge whether my claim is naïve.

You haven't provided a single instance of a scholar who argues that it should never be used on historical texts, which has been your claim from the outset. And, I'm beginning to seriously question your reading comprehension. Did you read any of the links you found on Google? Or did you just slam in the search, note that there were links---even some to scholarly journals!---and conclude, "Well, there's a debate here!" Do you even know what's being debated? (Here's a hint: it's not whether the I.F. should be applied to "historical" texts.)

Or, more importantly, did you find a single article which argues---as you have been arguing---that the principles Intentional Fallacy should never, ever be used on historical texts?

Once again, you're trying to change your argument.

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your assertion.

What assertion?

Your assertion that the I.F. doesn't apply to historical texts.

I don't have easy access to University libraries and anything I find on the web (my only realistic method of conveying information to you) you'll call a Google search. Nice way to cripple anything I could do Scratchie.

Your entire argument hinged on you calling my argument fallacious on this basis.

That's not quite accurate. I also said that your "genre" argument was crummy.

You have refused my repeated requests for you to show it being used on documents such as the Bible.

The very first article that you linked to---the book review---did precisely that! It was calling for Intentional Fallacy-derived caution w/r/t to historical biography.

You fall flat when I point out the Fallacy you're using is falling out of favor.

I do? Just scanning your Google search, I see that about half of the articles seem to be arguing in favor of the anti-Intentionalists.... What's funny is that I'm being told that I'm "not up to speed on the scholarship" by a dude who has admitted that he can't access the articles.

I'm done until I see something that shows that scholars would back you up in calling my argument fallacious in this way.

Your own citations do this! But, go ahead and bow out, The Nehor. You were toast practically from page 1 of the thread. Go take a break from the board, if you need it.

Otherwise this thread will balloon to twenty pages with us dancing back and forth without saying much (like most of the rest of this thread).

I just want to pause and point out a couple of things about this thread. First of all, you, as a poster, have always insisted---quite strenuously, in fact---that you're just here for "fun". Well, this thread explodes that little myth. It's clear that a lot of your thinking---a lot of your Mopologetic thinking---is attempting to be "serious." Your argument that the Bible should be taken literally due to authorial intent was made in completely, grimly serious earnestness. Also, your anger on the thread---your little temper tantrums and eruptions demonstrate further just how "serious" your stake is in all of this. With all this in mind, it becomes blindingly clear that your "jokiness" is really just a defense mechanism. You cannot counter the serious criticisms of the Church and of your faith, so you fall back on this dumb jokiness.

The second thing is your claim that you can be substantive when you want to be. I contested that claim, and now we've got nine pages worth of evidence that your attempts at substantive debate are, at best, horribly embarrassing and amateurish. You altered your argument at several points; you claimed to know and understand texts that you haven't even read; you foolishly tried to cite texts that contradict your own argument; you tried to use one class you took as an undergrad to bolster your authority; you changed your argument again; you tried to appeal to some Platonic Ideal of "objective reality." Etc., etc., etc. So: I'll agree that you try to be substantive, but this has to be seen as a spectacular failure. You ought to watch the other younger apologists like LoaP and Maklelan to see how it's done, because as things stand, you just look like a bumbling amateur. No offense, but it's true.

[_gramps]

Dr. Scratch, help an old man out. I haven't followed The Nehor's links, but I can get everything here at work. Which is the link that deals with IF and legal documents. That is right up my alley.

You wrote:

For heaven's sake, The Nehor, one of your links is to a book dealing with how the I.F. applies to legal texts and documents!

Thanks, bro.