The Nehor, your position is meant to be a straightforward "no funny stuff" take on history, I get that, but the conflict in your arguments just shows how hard that position everyone pretty much assumes to be true is to defend. You are basically arguing yourself in circles.
Nehor wrote: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.
But here's the problem you just aren't willing to own up to: How do you know it was a "historical account" where the author was "trying to convey what actually happened"? Your same point can be made about art too. I can argue the point of art isn't merely to "enjoy" but is more often than not to convey the mind and emotion of the artist, some kind of political agenda, or even "truth". A superficial example will do. Think of the painting of Joseph Smith in the grove with light shining on him and he's covering his eyes. My take,
"If you are looking at a painting where the artist is trying to convey what happened, be it an event or the emotion of the people within an event, then you are only crippling yourself by ignoring intent if you're trying to figure out what the picture actually means."
QED, huh? If you assume you know the artist was trying to convey some truth, x, and if your interest is in ascertaining that truth x as the artist was trying to convey it, then it would be bad to ignore the artist's intentions. Hey, maybe it's a picture of a young man being abducted by an alien? Some people could very much "enjoy" the painting under Nehor's interpretation of the I.F. But we can see the same objections to the I.F. for history can be made for art.
One clear issue for either art or history if we assume intent is our main objective: How do you know what the author's intent was? And Nehor's argument becomes circular here,
Nehor wrote:I've read legends and myth before. This is nothing like them. It purports to be historical in a way that no legend or myth does.
The interpretation of the text turns on the intent of the author. But the way you figure out the intent of the author is by interpreting the text.
Nehor wrote: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).
The Bible reads like events someone saw, therefore the intention of the authors must have been to portray events someone saw. So let us conclude the text is a recording of events that someone (supposidly) saw and is therefore a (supposed) historical text. Intent becomes redundant and meaningless. But intent goes out the window for good here,
Nehor wrote:The standard method of dealing with historical documents is to assume that they are true and test the claim.
Somehow, we'll test the words on the page and see if they really match reality. Fine, let's say this is trivial to do. It doesn't matter if Jack was intending to lie when he said Jill saw a spotted dog, whether he was speaking in a metaphor, or whether he really meant to convey his belief that Jill saw a spotted dog. What matters (per later Nehor) is that the words say "Jill saw a spotted dog" and there is an interpretation (that's obvious to Nehor) of those words that line up with reality *Jill really did see a dog*. Intent matters nothing.
a) in the sum total of Nehor's arguments in this thread, his appeal to intent is circular since his conclusions from intent and his method of establishing intent are the same thing. b) Implicitly because of the failure in a), b) his final criteria to measure the text against reality completely trash-cans the need to worry about intent. If the grooves in the record correspond to the aural presentation of the song, it doesn't matter how they got etched into vinyl.
The last thing to examine is Nehor's method of a-intentional textual interpretation that establishes the meaning of the text. Which again is,
Nehor wrote: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
Nehor wrote:I've read legends and myth before. This is nothing like them. It purports to be historical in a way that no legend or myth does.
How in fact does a "legend or myth" Portray itself as a legend and a myth while the Bible portary's itself as
history?
In what sense of the word [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History"]history[/url] did the writers intend it to be "historical?" (see etymology)
wiki wrote:The Ancient Greek word ἱστορία, historía, means "inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation". It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his Περί Τά Ζωα Ιστορία, Peri Ta Zoa Istória or, in Latinized form, Historia Animalium
If you keep digging around and read about oral history, it will become apparent that "folklore, myth, and legend" wasn't invented as a conscious metaphorical alternative to precise and rigid event descriptions in the Bible. Or how about Epic Poetry:
wiki wrote:An epic (from Greek: έπος or επικό "word, story, poem"[1]) is a lengthy narrative poem, ordinarily concerning a serious subject containing details of heroic deeds and events significant to a culture or nation
Of course, for Nehor, the events of epic poetry are fantastic and obviously intended as metaphor since they aren't important to his beliefs as a Mormon. I mean, a bunch of dudes eat yellow food and turn into pigs, lol, myth, but now a story about a thousand demons posessing a man, being cast out by Jesus, and then taking up swine and running them over a cliff, now that's
intended as objective chronological narrative right there. In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God and the Logos was God -- standard historical exegesis concerning the coming and going and characterization of the Logos. Clearly this is intended as historical narrative.
It's more accurate to say the Nehor decides based on his Mormon beliefs if a text could be true and if it cuts the mustard, it's authors obviously intended it to be "historical".