The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch of course fails to understand the fallacy. The fallacy exists mostly to judge creative poetry and/or fiction in a way that does not cripple the text with a fixation on what the author was trying to do.

You're right that the fallacy derived from the study of poetry (and/or fiction), but I'm not sure where you're getting this other bit. At its heart the Intentional Fallacy is a fallacy of reading. Authorial intent does not stop and start with works of imaginative literature.

The New Testament texts don't fall into the category; other works about history don't either. When I read Josephus recounting a battle he was in I don't think it's wise to detach authorial intent from the account.

Nor is it wise to insist that your interpretation is correct because you somehow have a certain knowledge of the author's intent.

In a poem what the author intended is irrelevant to enjoying or appreciating the poem. When you are reading a historical account where the author was there trying to convey what actually happened ignoring the author's intent in favor of any understanding of the text may increase artistic appreciation but it will cripple you in trying to figure out what actually happened.

You are really mangling the Fallacy, The Nehor, and this last sentence scarcely makes any sense. What are you trying to say here? "Enjoying" and "appreciating" are not the same as "interpreting" or "understanding." Both of the major New Critics' Fallacies have to do with interpreting the text. You have been arguing on this thread that (A) you have a sure knowledge of authorial intent vis-a-vis the New Testament (to which I have to ask: how do you know for certain? and how can your prove what the authors' intentions were?), and (B) that authorial intent has a real bearing on the text's final meaning. Both of these are fallacious claims.

Apparently unlike Scratch I spent a whole class period with an intelligent instructor in which we discussed when this fallacy is applicable. It is not applicable while dealing with seriously stated historical accounts like the Gospels or Josephus or dozens of others.

And this was at BYU, I assume, or some other LDS school? Or, some place where people sort of need an "off limits" policy in terms of applying critical reading habits to certain texts? Are you unfamiliar with other schools of reading (Feminist, Queer Theorist, New Historicist, etc.) that directly contradict what you're asserting here? I don't know why your instructor thought that this theory need be limited only to imaginative literature, but I think it's pretty obvious why it doesn't need to be, and why it is not. This is exactly why historians are often suspicious of or annoyed with literary theorists---because the Intentional Fallacy, and the thinking that arose from it, casts doubt on historical veracity. Really, I'm surprised that you don't know this. This is partly where DCP, and Midgley, and Loap, and many of the other apologists get their "there's no such thing as objectivity" slogan. You are positing historical texts---and the New Testament!---as some kind of "objective" fount of truth, and your basis for doing so is authorial intent. This is where your argument fails.

[_beastie]

No, what I'm saying is that it wasn't written as myth or legend which is why I don't see the need to read it as metaphorical or symbolic and I don't believe that it was written with that intent. I'm assuming we're still on the same topic as before which was not about the truthfulness of the account but the intent and whether someone can logically believe it is metaphorical.

It reads like a series of events someone saw. There's nothing like it in Greek, Norse, or Egyptian myth (only ones I'm familiar with). Tolkien's Silmarillion is closer to myth then the New Testament.

How do you know it wasn't written as myth or legend?

[_The Nehor]

No, what I'm saying is that it wasn't written as myth or legend which is why I don't see the need to read it as metaphorical or symbolic and I don't believe that it was written with that intent. I'm assuming we're still on the same topic as before which was not about the truthfulness of the account but the intent and whether someone can logically believe it is metaphorical.

It reads like a series of events someone saw. There's nothing like it in Greek, Norse, or Egyptian myth (only ones I'm familiar with). Tolkien's Silmarillion is closer to myth then the New Testament.

How do you know it wasn't written as myth or legend?

Because I've read myth and legend. It's nothing like it. I explained aspects of the text that lead me to believe this above.

[_Doctor Scratch]

No, what I'm saying is that it wasn't written as myth or legend which is why I don't see the need to read it as metaphorical or symbolic and I don't believe that it was written with that intent. I'm assuming we're still on the same topic as before which was not about the truthfulness of the account but the intent and whether someone can logically believe it is metaphorical.

It reads like a series of events someone saw. There's nothing like it in Greek, Norse, or Egyptian myth (only ones I'm familiar with). Tolkien's Silmarillion is closer to myth then the New Testament.

How do you know it wasn't written as myth or legend?

He doesn't, hence why I accused him of engaging in the Intentional Fallacy. He's claiming that he knows absolutely 100% for certain that the authors were intending to produce Objective, Documentary, Historical reportage. Obviously, though, there is no way for him to know this.

Also: I fail to see how his comparisons hold up very well. "[N]othing like it in Greek, Norse, or Egyptian myth"? First of all, weren't there people who took these "myths" literally at one time? Second of all, what does he mean when he says that there's "nothing like it" in these other texts? What is that referring to? Supernatural events? Omniscient narration? He doesn't say.

[_Thama]

I disagree. I think I know enough about language to discern when these kinds of expressions are being used with a reasonable degree of accuracy even if I have no prior knowledge of that particular expression. For example, when I've gone to different cultures that share a common language (Britain, Australia) I've heard expressions I've never heard before but through context and basic reasoning I know they're not literal right away despite never having heard them before and usually get what they mean immediately.

Ok, then let's use a trip to Britain as an example. You hear an expression completely unfamiliar to you and strange in nature if taken at face value (say, "The ferret lodged in my underwear hurts a lot"), and there is nobody else around who might have heard it to give you contextual clues as to whether the statement was surprising or normal in their eyes.

How might your view of the nature of this statement change under the following conditions:

1) The person making the statement is a known business acquaintance, Oxford educated, well-dressed and an excellent conversationalist.
2) The person making the statement has just previously made statements indicating paranoia directed at the CIA, described his alien abduction to you, and is dressed in filthy clothes, an unkempt beard, and is pushing his shopping cart full of garbage around a residential area.

Under the first condition, it may be reasonable to assume that this is a normal British phrase, and listen for it in further context in order to be able to use it in the future. If you treated the second condition with the same assumption, you would be likely to add a great deal of schizotypical language into your war chest of common British phrases, and may wind up joining your new educator under the overpass for the night due to its status as the only place safe from the little green men.

Ezekiel certainly does not demand the same level of respect as the first example. The subject matter of his text (and the history of prophets and oracles in general in the ancient world) seems to suggest a similar level of reliability as the second example. You may not be able to directly observe his behavior, but at best that counts him as neutral, and there is an entire book full of seemingly delusional and hallucinatory writings ascribed to him.

[_beastie]

Because I've read myth and legend. It's nothing like it. I explained aspects of the text that lead me to believe this above.

So myths and legends never "read like a series of events" that someone saw, with references to actual historical background information?

[_Calculus Crusader]

As naïve as assuming the part in the Bible that talks about God fathering a son with a moral woman...

There is no such part of the Bible.

...and that same son rising from the dead is literal?

There is nothing naïve about that.

[_JohnStuartMill]

...and that same son rising from the dead is literal?

There is nothing naïve about that.

Yeah, beastie! Haven't you heard of Sparkle Jesus Magic?

[_Calculus Crusader]

Yeah, beastie! Haven't you heard of Sparkle Jesus Magic?

This is what you get with a polsci degree.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You need a lot less than a polisci degree to see through superstitious hocus-pocus, CC.