The Bible is Rediculous!

[_JohnStuartMill]

Scratch, I don't think you quite understand the point of Crusader's argument. You see, Crusader really, really loves Jesus (in what sense, I won't comment), but almost all of the evidence for the specific Jesus Crusader believes in is in the same set of books as all those ridiculous stories about the Earth being created 6,883 years ago, the Tower of Babel, Jonah and the "fish", etc. This poses a consistency problem for him, so Crusader has to come up with some reason to read the New Testament "Jesus pulled a rabbit out of a hat" stories as literal, but not the Old Testament stories that geology and physics have been proving wrong for the last few centuries. He thinks he's found a rationale with his whole "the New Testament was intended to be read literally, while the Old Testament was not" shtick. Whether other documents are intended to be read literally doesn't really matter for this analysis, because Crusader's argument here does not purport to prove that the Bible is reliable -- it's merely a counterargument to skeptics' claims that the Bible is necessarily unreliable because of the antediluvian horse**** in the Old Testament.

But Crusader's position is still problematic for a couple of reasons. First, his warrant for reading the New Testament as literal also applies to a hell of a lot of the Old Testament. He thinks we should read Luke literally because it references historical events and persons, for example. Well, the Book of Exodus references the Egyptian pharaohs; if Crusader wanted to maintain consistency, he'd say that turning a staff into a snake should be read literally as well. (Although maybe he does, I dunno -- the point is, we should laugh at him either way.)

Another problem for Crusader is that in all the millennia that the Bible's been around, it's only since the advent of modern geology that Bible believers have tried to interpret any significant part of it as non-literal. Crusader wants to say that the forebears of his religion, the ancient Hebrews (who divided up their society into classes based on who was descended from which of Noah's descendants) were naïvely reading their texts, because the story of Noah wasn't intended to be read literally. He'd also have us believe that Jesus didn't find this pervasive and fundamental misinterpretation of God's word worthy of comment when he teleported to Earth to tell everyone that they'd been f*****g up his religion. Crusader's view of OT-as-not-necessarily-literal doesn't fit in with the Jesus story at all.

If all this reminds you of LGT-theory Mopologetics, it should: both are unconvincing ad hoc patches of religious beliefs that were once universally held by their adherents until science demolished them and made the unconvincing patches necessary.

Dear pretentious moron,

How many times do I have to tell you that I don't think the entire Old Testament is ahistorical?

Where did I say you did? You can stop thrashing the straw man and address my actual points at any time.

[_The Nehor]

ROFL! Um, yeah. I was wondering how long you'd take to shift the goalposts like this. (The title of the thread is, "The Bible is ridiculous".)

No, you keep shifting it back to the Bible for some reason. Since page 2 I have talked about the Gospels. If you'd like to broaden the discussion we can but I do not view all the books of the Bible the same. Up to you.

The Gospels are stories of the life of an individual. They differ from most modern biographies in that they do very little interpretation of the person of Jesus. They simply recite events. In that sense, they are historical documents. They describe a historical figure living a historical life.

This does nothing to help your case. By this logic, so long as the alien abductee "simply recites events," it's real history, and a real historical document. This is something you have never seemed to get the hang of over the course of the thread: the interior textual elements will not support your claims---or demands, really---for a literal reading.

By this logic, yes, it is a real historical document. That's fine. I'm with you. That's my logic. The alien abductee account would likely be dismissed as false quickly and is unlikely to make it into scholarly discourse as it will be almost unanimously considered a fraud. However, it does fit my definition and I allow it there.

I'm going to confine my remarks to the Gospels here.

Lol. Okay, go ahead. It's probably a wise move.

Well, you keep saying Bible when I've only discussed the Gospels. Not sure why you try to keep broadening it.

There are attempts at secular understandings of the life of Jesus that use as their primary text the Gospels. However, this is where the difference with Gibbon's works show up. It is generally impossible to decide that the Gospels are on the whole accurate and not believe that Jesus was divine. There is a stake in the decision. When reading a history of Rome there is no real personal stake in the matter.

There we go. It's not really about relying on "intent." It's actually about your "personal stake" and your testimony---pretty much just as I said from the outset. You don't believe the text is true because of authorial intent; you believe it's true because of your beliefs.

Do you deliberately misread everything I type? Of course I believe it's true because of my beliefs. That's also why I believe Tacitus and Josephus and the stories my grandpa told me. I DON'T believe it should be treated as a historical document because of my beliefs. If tomorrow I was to decide the Bible was false I would still believe it should be treated as a historical text. I would however reclassify it as a fradulent one.

Code: Select all

[quote]
I fail to see how the supernatural has anything to do with it unless you say outright from the beginning that supernatural events can't occur.  That is an entirely different question.[/quote]

It has plenty to do with why you wouldn't trust *other* supernatural accounts.  You probably wouldn't trust the alien abductee mainly because you don't think that aliens are real.  It's not a matter of believing that supernatural events can or cannot occur; it's about relying upon authorial intent to insist that they're real.  (Which, again, is what you did.)

Okay, why do you keep shifting arguments? I happen to believe in aliens. I don't think that they have crossed the interstellar void to visit our planet. I base this on the lack of evidence. This does not change that the abductee is giving a historical account that everyone must decide whether to believe or not to believe. I did not insist that they were real. I haven't concerned myself with the argument of whether you should or should not believe the Bible to be accurate history.

I challenge you to provide a quote supporting your accusation.

No, my argument is that it should be examined like any other document.

Kind of a broad statement, no? Do you read it like fiction? Or like poetry? Or like your bank statement? Or like a comic book? You treat it differently due to the "codes of reading" Blixa mentioned earlier. And, in your most recent post, you admitted that your main criterion for judging/reading it is "personal stake."

If it's a historical document that I have not made my mind up on I'm assuming that I'm reading it to discern whether it's accurate or not. If I have decided then I could have a host of way to read it, for: enjoyment, edification, refresh memory, curing ignorance, help in something I'm writing, etc.

I admitted no such thing. I stated that preconceptions lead us to make decisions about what is accurate history and what is not. If you believe that the supernatural can occur, you won't dismiss it on those grounds. If you don't believe the supernatural can occur, you will dismiss it. This has nothing to do with my argument though which is that the Bible is a historical text. After that you debate whether it is accurate or not.

I would be wary of anyone who claims to believe this document and insists that the dragons are symbolic of man's descent into reptilian lizard creatures when the text doesn't discuss that. I'd have more respect for the guy who thought the dragons were real. The proper approach would be to compare that story to other accounts of northern Canada and figure out if it matches.

This is all beside the point as far as intent goes. Then again, maybe you have non-Biblical texts from the same era that discuss Jesus' resurrection, and you're just not mentioning them, despite the fact that they'd help your case? I'm curious as to what you think the proper comparison is to the Gospels.... Obviously, it's highly problematic to just compare them to themselves....

I agree, you must look elsewhere to find evidence that the Bible is accurate. Some people come to it through philosophy, some through history, and some through spiritual experience. If you're asking me to provide secular support for the truth of the Resurrection I could try to make it plausible. Trying to prove it is beyond me. I would note that you probably should compare the Gospels to each other for a start. You should compare the historical aspects to the same period. You should compare the Resurrection and the rest of the story of Jesus to what you know of God.

However, all of this is immaterial to whether the Bible should be treated as a historical document. I think that Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, and Atheist can all agree on this point. They will disagree on whether it is accurate (especially regarding the supernatural elements).

Imagine that the Gospels were lost shortly after being written and discovered today. They purport to be historical. Those who disbelieve in the supernatural would toss them on that count. Those who believed it possible would examine the evidence and make a decision.

Again: this is missing the whole point about authorial intent, but, then again, you have been trying long and hard to dodge that point, so: fine.

Here your standards are arbitrary. You toss out some supernatural but you accept other kinds. And what "evidence" are you examining? Do you have lots more evidence of people coming back from the dead, ala Jesus?

When did I declare that documents containing other supernatural elements aren't historical accounts? I said the alien abductee was still such an account.

I just did. I stand by it all. From the beginning I've argued that the Gospels should be treated like any other account. If you've decided based on other premises that the supernatural does not happen then you would be quite right to discount the Gospels. If you compared the account to others from the First Century and find conflicts where the weight of evidence is on the other side then you should discount it.

I don't think that's ever been the issue here, The Nehor (though this was a nice attempt at re/mis-direction). This issue here has been whether or not it's appropriate to treat the Gospels (and the Bible) as literal history based on authorial intent. You argued that it was, and you got smacked down on that account.

I invite all to read this thread to determine if there was misdirection. My argument is that the Gospels should be taken and examined as a historical text because that is what they are. It is then up to the individual or University or academia as a whole to determine if they are accurate or not.[/quote]

There's really no denying this; it would be intellectually dishonest if you were to try and insist that you *weren't* arguing for the legitimacy and historicity of the texts based on authorial intent. You were; I called you on it, and you got pwned.

I've been arguing since page 2 that the Bible is a historical text and should be judged using the same model as any other text claiming to be historical and decisions made from then on.

How many declarations of victory is that now? Congratulations on beating several strawmen to death.

[_Doctor Scratch]

This does nothing to help your case. By this logic, so long as the alien abductee "simply recites events," it's real history, and a real historical document. This is something you have never seemed to get the hang of over the course of the thread: the interior textual elements will not support your claims---or demands, really---for a literal reading.

By this logic, yes, it is a real historical document. That's fine. I'm with you. That's my logic. The alien abductee account would likely be dismissed as false quickly and is unlikely to make it into scholarly discourse as it will be almost unanimously considered a fraud. However, it does fit my definition and I allow it there.

Good to know. Alien abductee accounts are every bit as historical as the New Testament, in your view. Gotcha.

Lol. Okay, go ahead. It's probably a wise move.

Well, you keep saying Bible when I've only discussed the Gospels. Not sure why you try to keep broadening it.

"Bible" was in the title of the thread.

There we go. It's not really about relying on "intent." It's actually about your "personal stake" and your testimony---pretty much just as I said from the outset. You don't believe the text is true because of authorial intent; you believe it's true because of your beliefs.

Do you deliberately misread everything I type? Of course I believe it's true because of my beliefs. That's also why I believe Tacitus and Josephus and the stories my grandpa told me.

???? You believe these things on account of your LDS testimony?

I DON'T believe it should be treated as a historical document because of my beliefs.

That *is* why you treat as a historical document, though.

If tomorrow I was to decide the Bible was false I would still believe it should be treated as a historical text. I would however reclassify it as a fradulent one.

This doesn't have anything to do with intent, but okay.

Code: Select all

[quote]
It has plenty to do with why you wouldn't trust *other* supernatural accounts.  You probably wouldn't trust the alien abductee mainly because you don't think that aliens are real.  It's not a matter of believing that supernatural events can or cannot occur; it's about relying upon authorial intent to insist that they're real.  (Which, again, is what you did.)

Okay, why do you keep shifting arguments? I happen to believe in aliens. I don't think that they have crossed the interstellar void to visit our planet. I base this on the lack of evidence. This does not change that the abductee is giving a historical account that everyone must decide whether to believe or not to believe. I did not insist that they were real. I haven't concerned myself with the argument of whether you should or should not believe the Bible to be accurate history.[/quote]

Sure you did. On pg. 2 you said that it should be treated as historical due to authorial intent.

I challenge you to provide a quote supporting your accusation.

I've already done so.

Kind of a broad statement, no? Do you read it like fiction? Or like poetry? Or like your bank statement? Or like a comic book? You treat it differently due to the "codes of reading" Blixa mentioned earlier. And, in your most recent post, you admitted that your main criterion for judging/reading it is "personal stake."

If it's a historical document that I have not made my mind up on I'm assuming that I'm reading it to discern whether it's accurate or not. If I have decided then I could have a host of way to read it, for: enjoyment, edification, refresh memory, curing ignorance, help in something I'm writing, etc.

Nothing to do with authorial intent here, though I suppose I could note in passing the obvious "chicken/egg" argument here---i.e., which "code of reading" do you choose first? I'd be willing to bet that you were first taught to read the Bible as historically accurate.

I admitted no such thing. I stated that preconceptions lead us to make decisions about what is accurate history and what is not. If you believe that the supernatural can occur, you won't dismiss it on those grounds. If you don't believe the supernatural can occur, you will dismiss it. This has nothing to do with my argument though which is that the Bible is a historical text.

Yes; I know. You argued that it was historical based on authorial intent.

This is all beside the point as far as intent goes. Then again, maybe you have non-Biblical texts from the same era that discuss Jesus' resurrection, and you're just not mentioning them, despite the fact that they'd help your case? I'm curious as to what you think the proper comparison is to the Gospels.... Obviously, it's highly problematic to just compare them to themselves....

I agree, you must look elsewhere to find evidence that the Bible is accurate. Some people come to it through philosophy, some through history, and some through spiritual experience. If you're asking me to provide secular support for the truth of the Resurrection I could try to make it plausible. Trying to prove it is beyond me.

Poof! There goes that argument.

I would note that you probably should compare the Gospels to each other for a start.

Well, then, that doesn't constitute "looking elsewhere."

However, all of this is immaterial to whether the Bible should be treated as a historical document.

Yes, and also whether authorial intent should be used as a criterion in determining this.

Again: this is missing the whole point about authorial intent, but, then again, you have been trying long and hard to dodge that point, so: fine.

Here your standards are arbitrary. You toss out some supernatural but you accept other kinds. And what "evidence" are you examining? Do you have lots more evidence of people coming back from the dead, ala Jesus?

When did I declare that documents containing other supernatural elements aren't historical accounts? I said the alien abductee was still such an account.

Only just now you did. I'd be willing to bet that you'd dismiss other kinds of supernatural elements, though.

I don't think that's ever been the issue here, The Nehor (though this was a nice attempt at re/mis-direction). This issue here has been whether or not it's appropriate to treat the Gospels (and the Bible) as literal history based on authorial intent. You argued that it was, and you got smacked down on that account.

I invite all to read this thread to determine if there was misdirection. My argument is that the Gospels should be taken and examined as a historical text because that is what they are.

Circulum in demonstrando. You argued (on pg. 2) that they should be taken as historical texts because the authors intended them to be taken that way.

There's really no denying this; it would be intellectually dishonest if you were to try and insist that you *weren't* arguing for the legitimacy and historicity of the texts based on authorial intent. You were; I called you on it, and you got pwned.

I've been arguing since page 2 that the Bible is a historical text and should be judged using the same model as any other text claiming to be historical and decisions made from then on.

You're trying to broaden your claims. Your early arguments were in favor of reading the Bible (now it's "The Bible" and not "The Gospels"?) as literal history on the basis of genre and authorial intent. Both of these, as I've shown, are crummy arguments---either by themselves, or individually. In particular, I went after the authorial intent argument, accusing you of committing the Intentional Fallacy.

Interestingly, you didn't attack the Fallacy itself, which you probably would have done if you'd been "up to speed on the scholarship," as you claimed. You *did* commit the Fallacy, and all of your subsequent thrashing is just further demonstration of how badly you got pwned. It would be one thing if you'd said, "Well, okay---yes, I'm committing the Fallacy, but I and a lot of other scholars have a problem with the rigidity of the Wimsatt/Beardsley model..." but that's not what you did. Instead, you made an appeal to false authority, claiming that you understood the Fallacy better than I did on account of that lone undergrad class discussion. And then you went on to make the dumb claim that the principles behind the fallacy somehow "don't apply" to non-literary texts. (You better phone up the guy who authored that book on legal texts and the I.F.) So: pwned on that account, too.

[_The Nehor]

I still do.

And that's the Intentional Fallacy in action.

Nope. Mischaracterization.

[quoteBut you *do* automatically believe the Bible "just because they said it"![/quote

No, I don't.

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. I claimed that because they said it the Gospels qualify as a historical text and should be judged on their own merits beyond that. I did not even come to the conclusion that I believe the Gospels based on "just because they said it".

I accept the Gospel account as largely accurate because it fits the period and seems plausible. Admittedly, I do believe the supernatural is possible because I've experienced it. My preconceptions influence my decision as to whether the account is accurate as they would for anyone. The decision is still there.

Well, then, bully for you. At least you're willing to admit that your decision is based on extra-literary considerations.

I have never denied this. This has nothing to do with whether the Gospels should be treated as historical texts and judged by those merits. You keep trying to drag my spiritual beliefs in for some reason.

Yes, I take what the author intends seriously. That's why we have forewords today in books.

A "foreward" is rather different from what the Bible is doing. And, I don't think that anyone is going to take issue with you "taking what the author intends seriously." Insisting that authorial intent dictates interpetation, though? That's a problem.

The difference between Luke explaining what he was doing is different from a modern author explaining what he is doing.....how exactly? I don't see it as a problem for documents like the Gospels.

I argued that the intent of the authors means that it should be taken as a historical text and judged on those merits. I fail to see pwnage.

It's pwnage because it's fallacious reasoning. The reality is that you don't start your interpretation with authorial intent; you are starting from the standpoint of the believer.

No, it's not. I did start my viewpoint on the Gospels as a believer. I took them on faith. Later, I grew up. I looked at it on their own merits. I determined that they are also historic accounts of events in the same sense that other histories are. I still have faith in them too. I also took Ecclesiastes on faith. It is still not a history. Ask someone to determine if Ecclesiastes happened and they'll look at you like you're crazy. Not so with the Gospels.

I didn't introduce it later on. I never argued that the Bible was real because someone said it was.

You said that it should be read as real because, in your view, the authors intended it to be read as real.

Yes, so either it was real or they deceived us.

I argued that it should be taken as a historical account.

Based on authorial intent.

Yes.

I disagree that I got pwned. I argued that it was ridiculous to read it in that way. I still do. I would also argue that it would be ridiculous to read Tacitus as if it was a beautiful story about the 'ideal' of Rome and not as actual history. The only rationale that you've offered to not put the Gospels and other histories in the same category is that the Gospels have supernatural elements in them. This could be grounds for saying it's false history but I don't see how it can be removed from the same standards of proof applied to other historical documents.

What does this have to do with authorial intent?

I'm showing that authorial intent in a history is important.

I think the alien abductee would be quite right to insist that his story be taken literally.

But you wouldn't be foolish to accept it as literal for that reason alone.

I agree. However, the abductee is also right.

Wow, you are really bad at this, The Nehor. So what if the person sees "a beautiful metaphor"? Is the person's interpretation wrong? Sure, the alien abductee might disagree, and *want* the story to be taken literally, but what law of interpretation says that the listener *must* interpret the story in a given way? Suppose the listener is a psychiatrist who sees the story as evidence of a repressed trauma? Does it really matter if the abductee thinks the psychiatrist is "nuts"? Does that make the psychiatrist's interpretation any less valid?

Yes, the person's understanding is wrong. The law of common sense steps in in this case. The psychiatrist is not re-interpreting the story. The psychiatrist believes it to be false and is trying to determine why the person is lying/mistaken, not reinterpreting it.

I would think they were nuts and insist it happened. They pull out more symbolic meaning. They are perverting what happened to me and not taking my account seriously.

No, actually, you are playing Mr. Totalitarian and *insisting* and having complete and utter control over the text's meaning.

Please don't write any history if you think facts are this malleable.

This person is comparable to the person who sees the Bible as myth to me. Luke would have torn his hair out trying to explain his gospel to someone who took it that way.

More mind-reading.

Well, since he's not here and all we have are his words and he said it was real repeatedly that's the only account we have. I'll go with that over speculation.

Now, let's say I run and talk to someone who is willing to listen to my story and hear the evidence. If they decide based on the evidence that I'm wrong then they go about their lives and pay my account no heed. This is comparable to the atheist or member of another faith that reads the Gospels and decides that the evidence is against them and they are not accurate.

Yes, but it's doesn't account for the multitudes of other readings.

The other readings come down in two general camps.

1: The story is about a great moral teacher who was afterwards deified by his followers. I take issue with this because it doesn't base itself on historical criticism. It bases itself on ejecting from the text everything (and there is a lot) that disagrees with your reading.

2: The story is about something divine and some great truth for which the resurrection and miracles are metaphor. This requires you to assume that all supernatural events are true without being factual. This also suffers from abuse of the text. It requires reading as metaphor everything that appears supernatural when the writer treated them no different. Call this intent if you will. However, I can't see taking one part of an account as literal because it fits preconceived views and another as metaphorical because it offends us or seems unrealistic. At that point you should just say it never happened and call it unintentional metaphor and do what you like with that.

Two different states. I'm arguing that the first state is the state of the lunatic who will pervert texts. The second is an investigator who reached a conclusion.

"State of the lunatic"? Who is it that's crafting straw men?

How does this relate to strawmen at all. I made a statement about what you said. You may disagree that it is the state of a lunatic but I'm not characterizing you as arguing that. You're slipping Scratch.

And: it needs to be said that all of this is a distraction away from the main issue vis-a-vis authorial intent.

No, I've made it quite clear that I think it's an abuse of academic thought to call my argument fallacious. I have my doubts that we will agree on this.

No one in your examples accepts or disbelieves the account simply due to the abductee's "intent."

I agree, that's why I've said so the whole time. I use intent only as a tool to know whether they want me to take it literally. Then it's decided whether you want to believe it or not.

And that's why you were foolish in the first place to use intent as positive evidence in favor of the New Testament's historical authenticity.

I used intent to suggest that the Gospels should be considered as possibly authentic. I don't recall arguing that it's positive evidence that it is authentic. If you want to discuss authenticity I'd be glad to but we should start a new thread to discuss it. Be warned. Much of the reason I believe it is due to spiritual experience. Up for it?

That's why you got pwned.

I can tell you and your colleagues are treating this with as much seriousness as a 14-year old playing Counterstrike.

[_Doctor Scratch]

[And that's the Intentional Fallacy in action.

Nope. Mischaracterization.

Evidence would be nice!

Well, then, bully for you. At least you're willing to admit that your decision is based on extra-literary considerations.

I have never denied this. This has nothing to do with whether the Gospels should be treated as historical texts and judged by those merits. You keep trying to drag my spiritual beliefs in for some reason.

Are you claiming they're irrelevant?

A "foreward" is rather different from what the Bible is doing. And, I don't think that anyone is going to take issue with you "taking what the author intends seriously." Insisting that authorial intent dictates interpetation, though? That's a problem.

The difference between Luke explaining what he was doing is different from a modern author explaining what he is doing.....how exactly?

For one thing, a modern "Forewords" is an extra-textual apparatus. The "evidence" you're talking about is an interior feature of the text.

It's pwnage because it's fallacious reasoning. The reality is that you don't start your interpretation with authorial intent; you are starting from the standpoint of the believer.

No, it's not. I did start my viewpoint on the Gospels as a believer. I took them on faith. Later, I grew up. I looked at it on their own merits. I determined that they are also historic accounts of events in the same sense that other histories are.

Not based on authorial intent, though. This, in your case, really has to be seen as an after-the-fact rationalization.

You said that it should be read as real because, in your view, the authors intended it to be read as real.

Yes, so either it was real or they deceived us.

Or they meant another meaning entirely. Or the Gospels were intended as political propaganda, or religious agitprop. You cannot insist on an "either/or" interpretation.

Based on authorial intent.

Yes.

And that's the Intentional Fallacy.

What does this have to do with authorial intent?

I'm showing that authorial intent in a history is important.

You haven't shown any such thing.

Wow, you are really bad at this, The Nehor. So what if the person sees "a beautiful metaphor"? Is the person's interpretation wrong? Sure, the alien abductee might disagree, and *want* the story to be taken literally, but what law of interpretation says that the listener *must* interpret the story in a given way? Suppose the listener is a psychiatrist who sees the story as evidence of a repressed trauma? Does it really matter if the abductee thinks the psychiatrist is "nuts"? Does that make the psychiatrist's interpretation any less valid?

Yes, the person's understanding is wrong. The law of common sense steps in in this case. The psychiatrist is not re-interpreting the story. The psychiatrist believes it to be false and is trying to determine why the person is lying/mistaken, not reinterpreting it.

???? That requires a pretty simplistic/reductive understanding of reality, The Nehor. The psychiatrists (arguably correct) interpretation doesn't render the experience any more or less "real" for the abductee. This is something that you seem to fail to realize: they is no "objective" history. Just ask DCP and LoaP. They'll call you naïve, too.

No, actually, you are playing Mr. Totalitarian and *insisting* and having complete and utter control over the text's meaning.

Please don't write any history if you think facts are this malleable.

Are you seriously trying to insist that objective history is a reality?

More mind-reading.

Well, since he's not here and all we have are his words and he said it was real repeatedly that's the only account we have. I'll go with that over speculation.

Uh, what you're doing is still speculation.

Yes, but it's doesn't account for the multitudes of other readings.

The other readings come down in two general camps.

1: The story is about a great moral teacher who was afterwards deified by his followers. I take issue with this because it doesn't base itself on historical criticism. It bases itself on ejecting from the text everything (and there is a lot) that disagrees with your reading.

How do you figure? This reading doesn't demand any "ejection" of the material on the Romans, or the ancient Middle East. You seem to be making a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc sort of argument here: "Well, hey---there's some verifiably accurate history here, so the supernatural stuff must be true to!" If that's what you're arguing, then you're guilty of another logical fallacy.

2: The story is about something divine and some great truth for which the resurrection and miracles are metaphor. This requires you to assume that all supernatural events are true without being factual. This also suffers from abuse of the text. It requires reading as metaphor everything that appears supernatural when the writer treated them no different. Call this intent if you will. However, I can't see taking one part of an account as literal because it fits preconceived views and another as metaphorical because it offends us or seems unrealistic. At that point you should just say it never happened and call it unintentional metaphor and do what you like with that.

Come on. That's nonsense. Have you read Everything is Illuminated? Part of this deals with the Holocaust, and with the young protagonist's attempt to piece together what happened to his relative(s) in the Ukraine. Clearly, we're meant to treat the Holocaust as real, and yet the book also contains elements that are magical realist. Readers are perfectly capable of compartmentalization, and so are writers.

The tone argument is silly too. A schizophrenic (and haven't there been studies arguing that St. John was schizo at the time he wrote the Book of Revelation?) relates mundane and surreal things in precisely the same manner. Similarity of tone/style is no reason to demand that everything be treated as literal.

And: it needs to be said that all of this is a distraction away from the main issue vis-a-vis authorial intent.

No, I've made it quite clear that I think it's an abuse of academic thought to call my argument fallacious. I have my doubts that we will agree on this.

It is fallacious to claim that the text should be treated as real, literal history on account of authorial intent.

No one in your examples accepts or disbelieves the account simply due to the abductee's "intent."

I agree, that's why I've said so the whole time. I use intent only as a tool to know whether they want me to take it literally. Then it's decided whether you want to believe it or not.

Oh, good grief. Shift the goal posts again, why don't you?

And that's why you were foolish in the first place to use intent as positive evidence in favor of the New Testament's historical authenticity.

I used intent to suggest that the Gospels should be considered as possibly authentic.

Well. Now we've gone from, "They must be authentic because that's what the author's intended!" to "intent *might* suggest that the Gospels are maybe, possibly authentic." I suppose this is as close to a concession as we'll see, but your language here is a whole heck of a lot more cautious than it was at the outset.

I don't recall arguing that it's positive evidence that it is authentic.

Your argument requires that history and authenticity go hand-in-hand. Then again, I suppose it's emotionally convenient that you "don't recall" this.

[_The Nehor]

By this logic, yes, it is a real historical document. That's fine. I'm with you. That's my logic. The alien abductee account would likely be dismissed as false quickly and is unlikely to make it into scholarly discourse as it will be almost unanimously considered a fraud. However, it does fit my definition and I allow it there.

Good to know. Alien abductee accounts are every bit as historical as the New Testament, in your view. Gotcha.

No, they're in the same limbo as the Gospels until you examine in the evidence.

Well, you keep saying Bible when I've only discussed the Gospels. Not sure why you try to keep broadening it.

"Bible" was in the title of the thread.

It was but the discussion quickly narrowed.

Do you deliberately misread everything I type? Of course I believe it's true because of my beliefs. That's also why I believe Tacitus and Josephus and the stories my grandpa told me.

???? You believe these things on account of your LDS testimony?

No, I believe them because I agree with what Tacitus and Josephus wrote based on evidence, same as the Gospels.

I DON'T believe it should be treated as a historical document because of my beliefs.

That *is* why you treat as a historical document, though.

No, no it's not. You're mind-reading and trying to get me to say what you want me to say.

If tomorrow I was to decide the Bible was false I would still believe it should be treated as a historical text. I would however reclassify it as a fradulent one.

This doesn't have anything to do with intent, but okay.

True, but you keep trying to tie intent to things I never tied it to.

Okay, why do you keep shifting arguments? I happen to believe in aliens. I don't think that they have crossed the interstellar void to visit our planet. I base this on the lack of evidence. This does not change that the abductee is giving a historical account that everyone must decide whether to believe or not to believe. I did not insist that they were real. I haven't concerned myself with the argument of whether you should or should not believe the Bible to be accurate history.

Sure you did. On pg. 2 you said that it should be treated as historical due to authorial intent.

No, I didn't. I said I didn't concern myself with something. You bring up something else and say I did. I did do what you said, I do think that the Bible should be treated as historical. I also said that I was not concerning myself as to whether said historical text was accurate or fradulent.

I challenge you to provide a quote supporting your accusation.

I've already done so.

No, no you didn't. How about this? You always ask for verbatim quotes. I will do likewise as it seems you are reading my posts sloppily and not realizing distinctions.

If it's a historical document that I have not made my mind up on I'm assuming that I'm reading it to discern whether it's accurate or not. If I have decided then I could have a host of way to read it, for: enjoyment, edification, refresh memory, curing ignorance, help in something I'm writing, etc.

Nothing to do with authorial intent here, though I suppose I could note in passing the obvious "chicken/egg" argument here---i.e., which "code of reading" do you choose first? I'd be willing to bet that you were first taught to read the Bible as historically accurate.

It's true that the decision is often made in advance. However, with the Bible this was not true of me. The Gospels lived in the land of fairy tales that I believed and lived by when I was young. When I was a teenager and started seriously reading then I saw it as history.

I admitted no such thing. I stated that preconceptions lead us to make decisions about what is accurate history and what is not. If you believe that the supernatural can occur, you won't dismiss it on those grounds. If you don't believe the supernatural can occur, you will dismiss it. This has nothing to do with my argument though which is that the Bible is a historical text.

Yes; I know. You argued that it was historical based on authorial intent.

I have never denied this.

I agree, you must look elsewhere to find evidence that the Bible is accurate. Some people come to it through philosophy, some through history, and some through spiritual experience. If you're asking me to provide secular support for the truth of the Resurrection I could try to make it plausible. Trying to prove it is beyond me.

Poof! There goes that argument.

Nope, still there. I'm only concerning myself as to whether the Gospels should be judged as a historical text, not with arguments as to whether it's accurate or not.

I would note that you probably should compare the Gospels to each other for a start.

Well, then, that doesn't constitute "looking elsewhere."

I agree. I threw that in is a basic comparative model in addition to looking elsewhere. Secular scholars compare them all the time in an attempt to ascertain accuracy.

However, all of this is immaterial to whether the Bible should be treated as a historical document.

Yes, and also whether authorial intent should be used as a criterion in determining this.

It should. Anything else leads to madness when studying history.

Again: this is missing the whole point about authorial intent, but, then again, you have been trying long and hard to dodge that point, so: fine.

No, I haven't. I just deny that my argument is fallacious and do not believe you have shown it to be so.

Here your standards are arbitrary. You toss out some supernatural but you accept other kinds. And what "evidence" are you examining? Do you have lots more evidence of people coming back from the dead, ala Jesus?

Again, if you want to discuss why I believe the Gospels to be accurate it is an entirely different discussion.

When did I declare that documents containing other supernatural elements aren't historical accounts? I said the alien abductee was still such an account.

Only just now you did. I'd be willing to bet that you'd dismiss other kinds of supernatural elements, though.

No, I've supported that alien abductee the whole way since he showed up. I do not consider supernatural elements proof to me that a historical account it accurate. I don't consider them disproof either. I admit I'm more likely to accept accounts that match my own experience. This is true of everyone. If we are criticizing each others standards of evidence do you believe a historical account that contains supernatural elements is inaccurate in all cases? If so, why? Does this not make you as biased as you seem to insinuate I am.[/quote]

In any case, this is not the argument we're really discussing as you've pointed out.

I invite all to read this thread to determine if there was misdirection. My argument is that the Gospels should be taken and examined as a historical text because that is what they are.

Circulum in demonstrando. You argued (on pg. 2) that they should be taken as historical texts because the authors intended them to be taken that way.

Indeed I did. I still do. I find someone's intent a good way to interpret their actions.

I've been arguing since page 2 that the Bible is a historical text and should be judged using the same model as any other text claiming to be historical and decisions made from then on.

You're trying to broaden your claims. Your early arguments were in favor of reading the Bible (now it's "The Bible" and not "The Gospels"?) as literal history on the basis of genre and authorial intent. Both of these, as I've shown, are crummy arguments---either by themselves, or individually. In particular, I went after the authorial intent argument, accusing you of committing the Intentional Fallacy.

I mistyped. I keep mentioning the Gospels in my posts and you keep changing it to Bible in yours. I typed Bible because I was responding to your change. Please read that as Gospels.

I do not find these arguments crummy. I doubt historians would either.

Interestingly, you didn't attack the Fallacy itself, which you probably would have done if you'd been "up to speed on the scholarship," as you claimed.

I did attack it but I don't have the resources to show this convincingly. Just as you have not convincingly shown via scholarship that you correctly labeled my argument as fallacious.

You *did* commit the Fallacy, and all of your subsequent thrashing is just further demonstration of how badly you got pwned.

I deny this. I think you're abusing scholarship to score points otherwise you'd provide links and support for your characterization. You have not. Despite this, you claim to have access to these resources.

It would be one thing if you'd said, "Well, okay---yes, I'm committing the Fallacy, but I and a lot of other scholars have a problem with the rigidity of the Wimsatt/Beardsley model..." but that's not what you did.

Arguing that the fallacy is a mischaracterization in this case is not arguing that the model you're using is flawed?

Instead, you made an appeal to false authority, claiming that you understood the Fallacy better than I did on account of that lone undergrad class discussion.

I'm sure you can prove this then.

And then you went on to make the dumb claim that the principles behind the fallacy somehow "don't apply" to non-literary texts. (You better phone up the guy who authored that book on legal texts and the I.F.)

Legal texts and history texts are distinct aren't they? I'm only superficially familiar with law texts and have no idea what arguments the legal community would call fallacious. However, the constant arguments about the intent of the Constitution and the intent of laws seems to me to indicate that reading intent into law is not by default fallacious.

So: pwned on that account, too.

You were pwned n00b. lulz.

There's serious discussion offered here folks.

[_The Nehor]

Nope. Mischaracterization.

Evidence would be nice!

Show that my argument is fallacious using real historians and I'll counter your assertions. Right now it's assertion vs. assertion. Your argument that my argument is fallacious came first.

I have never denied this. This has nothing to do with whether the Gospels should be treated as historical texts and judged by those merits. You keep trying to drag my spiritual beliefs in for some reason.

Are you claiming they're irrelevant?

To the question of whether the Gospels should be considered as historical texts, yes.

The difference between Luke explaining what he was doing is different from a modern author explaining what he is doing.....how exactly?

For one thing, a modern "Forewords" is an extra-textual apparatus. The "evidence" you're talking about is an interior feature of the text.

So you're saying that if Luke wrote Foreword over the first three verses of the Bible you'd agree with me? It serves the same purpose as a foreword. A lot of ancient texts begin with the author announcing who they are and what they're doing. It's the equivalent of a foreword in all but name.

No, it's not. I did start my viewpoint on the Gospels as a believer. I took them on faith. Later, I grew up. I looked at it on their own merits. I determined that they are also historic accounts of events in the same sense that other histories are.

Not based on authorial intent, though. This, in your case, really has to be seen as an after-the-fact rationalization.

It has to be seen that way because you need it to be seen that way or your argument collapses. Unfortunately I'm the only one acquainted with the facts of my experiences with the Bible and you are wrong.

Yes, so either it was real or they deceived us.

Or they meant another meaning entirely. Or the Gospels were intended as political propaganda, or religious agitprop. You cannot insist on an "either/or" interpretation.

Except that the author said they weren't and they aren't written that way...

Political propaganda? Really? Who would try to rouse the masses to political change with the story of a guy who stays out of politics....he didn't even display anti-Roman sentiment.

Agitprop? You're suggesting Jesus was a communist?

Yes.

And that's the Intentional Fallacy.

I disagree. The argument is not fallacious.

I'm showing that authorial intent in a history is important.

You haven't shown any such thing.

Yes, I did. You must have missed it.

Yes, the person's understanding is wrong. The law of common sense steps in in this case. The psychiatrist is not re-interpreting the story. The psychiatrist believes it to be false and is trying to determine why the person is lying/mistaken, not reinterpreting it.

???? That requires a pretty simplistic/reductive understanding of reality, The Nehor. The psychiatrists (arguably correct) interpretation doesn't render the experience any more or less "real" for the abductee. This is something that you seem to fail to realize: they is no "objective" history. Just ask DCP and LoaP. They'll call you naïve, too.

The abductee may think it is real....and it was. It was a real hallucination. I believe in an objective reality. There is no truly objective history. There are however objective historical facts. When a story recounts facts they either did or did not occur.

Please don't write any history if you think facts are this malleable.

Are you seriously trying to insist that objective history is a reality?

Nope, however there are objective historical facts. The Gospels recount what they purport to be some of these facts.

Well, since he's not here and all we have are his words and he said it was real repeatedly that's the only account we have. I'll go with that over speculation.

Uh, what you're doing is still speculation.

Not really, I'm just trusting him as opposed to not trusting him. I try to make that my default stance towards people (with mixed results).

The other readings come down in two general camps.

1: The story is about a great moral teacher who was afterwards deified by his followers. I take issue with this because it doesn't base itself on historical criticism. It bases itself on ejecting from the text everything (and there is a lot) that disagrees with your reading.

How do you figure? This reading doesn't demand any "ejection" of the material on the Romans, or the ancient Middle East. You seem to be making a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc sort of argument here: "Well, hey---there's some verifiably accurate history here, so the supernatural stuff must be true to!" If that's what you're arguing, then you're guilty of another logical fallacy.

It demands you eject the supernatural elements on the basis alone that they are supernatural, a strong bias. Admittedly, it does not all have to be true but each part either is or isn't. I personally wouldn't trust a writer who tells a true story and fills it in with lies passed off as truth.

2: The story is about something divine and some great truth for which the resurrection and miracles are metaphor. This requires you to assume that all supernatural events are true without being factual. This also suffers from abuse of the text. It requires reading as metaphor everything that appears supernatural when the writer treated them no different. Call this intent if you will. However, I can't see taking one part of an account as literal because it fits preconceived views and another as metaphorical because it offends us or seems unrealistic. At that point you should just say it never happened and call it unintentional metaphor and do what you like with that.

Come on. That's nonsense. Have you read Everything is Illuminated? Part of this deals with the Holocaust, and with the young protagonist's attempt to piece together what happened to his relative(s) in the Ukraine. Clearly, we're meant to treat the Holocaust as real, and yet the book also contains elements that are magical realist. Readers are perfectly capable of compartmentalization, and so are writers.

I have not read that book but the Gospels do not suggest that they are historical fiction in any way.

The tone argument is silly too. A schizophrenic (and haven't there been studies arguing that St. John was schizo at the time he wrote the Book of Revelation?) relates mundane and surreal things in precisely the same manner. Similarity of tone/style is no reason to demand that everything be treated as literal.

I distrust people giving psychiatric appraisals from 20 centuries away.

Revelation is not a history like the gospels.

No, I've made it quite clear that I think it's an abuse of academic thought to call my argument fallacious. I have my doubts that we will agree on this.

It is fallacious to claim that the text should be treated as real, literal history on account of authorial intent.

In the realm of history, I disagree.

I agree, that's why I've said so the whole time. I use intent only as a tool to know whether they want me to take it literally. Then it's decided whether you want to believe it or not.

Oh, good grief. Shift the goal posts again, why don't you?

Nope, this is what I've always been saying. It claims to be historical. It was intended as historical. Now I need to figure out whether it is accurate or not.

I used intent to suggest that the Gospels should be considered as possibly authentic.

Well. Now we've gone from, "They must be authentic because that's what the author's intended!" to "intent *might* suggest that the Gospels are maybe, possibly authentic." I suppose this is as close to a concession as we'll see, but your language here is a whole heck of a lot more cautious than it was at the outset.

No, we didn't shift to that. Same argument as always Scratch.

Step 1: Find out if text is historical. Look at intent, reception, and the text itself.

If text is historical, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Determine whether text is accurate or not using any and all appropriate methods.

Same as always. I argue the Gospels pass Step 1.

I don't recall arguing that it's positive evidence that it is authentic.

Your argument requires that history and authenticity go hand-in-hand. Then again, I suppose it's emotionally convenient that you "don't recall" this.

Well then I'm sure you can provide a quote. I'm not sure what you mean by emotionally convenient here. I'm pretty sure I don't recall it because it never happened. Feel free to prove me wrong with a verbatim quote.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Good to know. Alien abductee accounts are every bit as historical as the New Testament, in your view. Gotcha.

No, they're in the same limbo as the Gospels until you examine in the evidence.

How on earth are you going to "examine the evidence" in this case?

???? You believe these things on account of your LDS testimony?

No, I believe them because I agree with what Tacitus and Josephus wrote based on evidence, same as the Gospels.

What evidence? (Aside from authorial intent, of course.)

Sure you did. On pg. 2 you said that it should be treated as historical due to authorial intent.

No, I didn't. I said I didn't concern myself with something. You bring up something else and say I did. I did do what you said, I do think that the Bible should be treated as historical. I also said that I was not concerning myself as to whether said historical text was accurate or fradulent.

You are really stretching your terms here, The Nehor. Unless you want to define "history" as something that's "inaccurate."

Yes; I know. You argued that it was historical based on authorial intent.

I have never denied this.

Well, then, you were guilty of the I.F.

Poof! There goes that argument.

Nope, still there. I'm only concerning myself as to whether the Gospels should be judged as a historical text, not with arguments as to whether it's accurate or not.

What's the distinction between "historical text" and "accurate text"? What historical texts, in your view, *don't* "intend" to be "accurate"?

Indeed I did. I still do. I find someone's intent a good way to interpret their actions.

You've always stated that your "intent" on the board is to goof off and make jokes. Should your posts on this subject be interpreted as goofball jokes?

Interestingly, you didn't attack the Fallacy itself, which you probably would have done if you'd been "up to speed on the scholarship," as you claimed.

I did attack it but I don't have the resources to show this convincingly.

Uh, no you didn't. You said that it "didn't apply" to historical texts. When I asked you to provide a scholarly quote supporting this, you demurred. This is now the seventh or so time that I've asked.

Just as you have not convincingly shown via scholarship that you correctly labeled my argument as fallacious.

I said you were guilty of the Intentional Fallacy. You were. What, do you want a published article saying, "The Nehor committed the Intentional Fallacy recently"?

You *did* commit the Fallacy, and all of your subsequent thrashing is just further demonstration of how badly you got pwned.

I deny this. I think you're abusing scholarship to score points otherwise you'd provide links and support for your characterization. You have not.

Sure I have. I supplied the Eagleton, and the Beardsley/Wimsatt essay. Authors do not wholly determine meaning, The Nehor, which is what you suggested in your posts on pg. 2.

It would be one thing if you'd said, "Well, okay---yes, I'm committing the Fallacy, but I and a lot of other scholars have a problem with the rigidity of the Wimsatt/Beardsley model..." but that's not what you did.

Arguing that the fallacy is a mischaracterization in this case is not arguing that the model you're using is flawed?

Huh? That's not what you did, The Nehor. You said, first, that *I* didn't understand the Fallacy. Then you claimed that the principles underlying it "don't apply" to historical texts. Care to elaborate on that?

And then you went on to make the dumb claim that the principles behind the fallacy somehow "don't apply" to non-literary texts. (You better phone up the guy who authored that book on legal texts and the I.F.)

Legal texts and history texts are distinct aren't they? I'm only superficially familiar with law texts and have no idea what arguments the legal community would call fallacious. However, the constant arguments about the intent of the Constitution and the intent of laws seems to me to indicate that reading intent into law is not by default fallacious.

Ah. There we go. But that isn't what you argued, The Nehor. Yes: a non-Originalist might argue that, say, Justice Scalia is committing the Intentional Fallacy, and the non-Originalist would be right. Would Scalia be right in saying, "You don't understand the fallacy, cause my teacher told me about it!" No. Would Scalia be right in saying, "the Intentional Fallacy doesn't apply to legal texts!" No. Because it *does* apply. We can argue about how much i applies, but that isn't what you did, The Nehor. Instead, you showed how much of an amateur's grasp you have of the concepts, and you very foolishly insisted that it has *no bearing whatsoever* on historical texts!

You're right: it's not "by default" fallacious to consider intent. (Provided that you ignore the Intentional Fallacy, of course.) But, it *is* fallacious to base a majority of your interpretation on whatever you assume to be the author's intent. That's what you were doing, and that's why you got pwned. But, at this point, you have backtracked so far from your original claims that it scarcely matters.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Evidence would be nice!

Show that my argument is fallacious using real historians and I'll counter your assertions. Right now it's assertion vs. assertion. Your argument that my argument is fallacious came first.

What a dumb request. What, do you want a quote that says, "The Nehor is fallacious"? You posted that review the other day that said that caution is wise vis-a-vis intent. As far as I'm concerned, that explodes your original insistence that "intent" is so crucial in this case.

You haven't shown any such thing.

Yes, I did.

Nope!

???? That requires a pretty simplistic/reductive understanding of reality, The Nehor. The psychiatrists (arguably correct) interpretation doesn't render the experience any more or less "real" for the abductee. This is something that you seem to fail to realize: they is no "objective" history. Just ask DCP and LoaP. They'll call you naïve, too.

The abductee may think it is real....and it was. It was a real hallucination. I believe in an objective reality. There is no truly objective history. There are however objective historical facts. When a story recounts facts they either did or did not occur.

It's not as simple as that.

How do you figure? This reading doesn't demand any "ejection" of the material on the Romans, or the ancient Middle East. You seem to be making a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc sort of argument here: "Well, hey---there's some verifiably accurate history here, so the supernatural stuff must be true to!" If that's what you're arguing, then you're guilty of another logical fallacy.

It demands you eject the supernatural elements on the basis alone that they are supernatural, a strong bias. Admittedly, it does not all have to be true but each part either is or isn't. I personally wouldn't trust a writer who tells a true story and fills it in with lies passed off as truth.

Have you heard of James Frey?

I have not read that book but the Gospels do not suggest that they are historical fiction in any way.

Sure they do. (Or can, in any case.)

The tone argument is silly too. A schizophrenic (and haven't there been studies arguing that St. John was schizo at the time he wrote the Book of Revelation?) relates mundane and surreal things in precisely the same manner. Similarity of tone/style is no reason to demand that everything be treated as literal.

I distrust people giving psychiatric appraisals from 20 centuries away.

Your tone argument still hasn't been rescued.

It is fallacious to claim that the text should be treated as real, literal history on account of authorial intent.

In the realm of history, I disagree.

Which, of course, is why you'd believe the alien abductee, and bigfoot witness, the citizen of Atlantis. There is a phrase for this: it's called being a sucker.

Oh, good grief. Shift the goal posts again, why don't you?

Nope, this is what I've always been saying. It claims to be historical. It was intended as historical. Now I need to figure out whether it is accurate or not.

Hence why the "intent" part isn't a good measure of historicity.

Step 1: Find out if text is historical. Look at intent, reception, and the text itself.

If text is historical, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Determine whether text is accurate or not using any and all appropriate methods.

Same as always. I argue the Gospels pass Step 1.

Yes; and intent alone is not enough to establish historicity. Your argument is fallacious on those grounds. Reception is irrelevant, since a good chunk of readers dismiss the Bible as history. In terms of the "text itself," well, you haven't ponied up much evidence beyond your intent argument. Your own argument doesn't even pass its own standards.

[_The Nehor]

No, they're in the same limbo as the Gospels until you examine in the evidence.

How on earth are you going to "examine the evidence" in this case?

Ask the abductee for evidence and go from there.

No, I believe them because I agree with what Tacitus and Josephus wrote based on evidence, same as the Gospels.

What evidence? (Aside from authorial intent, of course.)

Nope, authorial intent has nothing to do with the evidence. Tacitus and Josephus? Similar accounts fitting and people I trust saying it fits. Gospels? Testimony of Prophets and spiritual witness along with the above.

No, I didn't. I said I didn't concern myself with something. You bring up something else and say I did. I did do what you said, I do think that the Bible should be treated as historical. I also said that I was not concerning myself as to whether said historical text was accurate or fradulent.

You are really stretching your terms here, The Nehor. Unless you want to define "history" as something that's "inaccurate."

Not really. I've been using the term consistently.

I have never denied this.

Well, then, you were guilty of the I.F.

I disagree.

Nope, still there. I'm only concerning myself as to whether the Gospels should be judged as a historical text, not with arguments as to whether it's accurate or not.

What's the distinction between "historical text" and "accurate text"? What historical texts, in your view, *don't* "intend" to be "accurate"?

Lying ones. Mistaken ones. Most of what you say about apologetic history. That kind of thing. I've used historical text to mean anything that purports to be historic and accurate to mean it's actually factual/correct. The Gospels are historical texts and it's debated whether they are accurate.

Indeed I did. I still do. I find someone's intent a good way to interpret their actions.

You've always stated that your "intent" on the board is to goof off and make jokes. Should your posts on this subject be interpreted as goofball jokes?

Don't let my intentions get in the way of your interpretation.

I did attack it but I don't have the resources to show this convincingly.

Uh, no you didn't. You said that it "didn't apply" to historical texts. When I asked you to provide a scholarly quote supporting this, you demurred. This is now the seventh or so time that I've asked.

As I said, I don't have access to the historical texts I need. As you are the one trying to show that my argument is fallacious shouldn't you produce the evidence in any case.

Just as you have not convincingly shown via scholarship that you correctly labeled my argument as fallacious.

I said you were guilty of the Intentional Fallacy. You were. What, do you want a published article saying, "The Nehor committed the Intentional Fallacy recently"?

I'm arguing that my argument is not fallacious. I'm arguing that ignoring the intentions of a writer writing history is naïve and foolish. How about an article on a history text where it's declared that the author's intent is irrelevant? Or a discussion of examples of fallacious arguments about a historical document.

I deny this. I think you're abusing scholarship to score points otherwise you'd provide links and support for your characterization. You have not.

Sure I have. I supplied the Eagleton, and the Beardsley/Wimsatt essay. Authors do not wholly determine meaning, The Nehor, which is what you suggested in your posts on pg. 2.

You did, none of them discussed texts on history, I've also pointed out that the arguments you've supplied are under contention in the academic community even about literary texts.

Arguing that the fallacy is a mischaracterization in this case is not arguing that the model you're using is flawed?

Huh? That's not what you did, The Nehor. You said, first, that *I* didn't understand the Fallacy. Then you claimed that the principles underlying it "don't apply" to historical texts. Care to elaborate on that?

Sure, your characterizing my argument as fallacious is incorrect. As you labeled my argument as fallacious incorrectly you clearly don't understand it completely.

Legal texts and history texts are distinct aren't they? I'm only superficially familiar with law texts and have no idea what arguments the legal community would call fallacious. However, the constant arguments about the intent of the Constitution and the intent of laws seems to me to indicate that reading intent into law is not by default fallacious.

Ah. There we go. But that isn't what you argued, The Nehor. Yes: a non-Originalist might argue that, say, Justice Scalia is committing the Intentional Fallacy, and the non-Originalist would be right. Would Scalia be right in saying, "You don't understand the fallacy, cause my teacher told me about it!" No. Would Scalia be right in saying, "the Intentional Fallacy doesn't apply to legal texts!" No. Because it *does* apply. We can argue about how much i applies, but that isn't what you did, The Nehor. Instead, you showed how much of an amateur's grasp you have of the concepts, and you very foolishly insisted that it has *no bearing whatsoever* on historical texts!

I stand by that insistence that you call foolish. I was discussing history texts. You brought in law as if they relate. I have no idea whether a law argument could correctly be called fallacious. I expect it would rarely be involved. So I admit I know little about law and you take this to mean I know nothing about history. Score one for Scratch. I feel pwned.

You're right: it's not "by default" fallacious to consider intent. (Provided that you ignore the Intentional Fallacy, of course.) But, it *is* fallacious to base a majority of your interpretation on whatever you assume to be the author's intent. That's what you were doing, and that's why you got pwned. But, at this point, you have backtracked so far from your original claims that it scarcely matters.

My argument is the same as it's always been. I deny your accusation.