(April 1, 2023 at 7:58 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Because the stories are not simply an account of events, but narratives intended to convey important messages.

I agree with this. That the Biblical stories are not simply accounts of events but convey a message. However, where I might fall more into the literalist camp, is that I would say that whether or not the story of Judas happened, it is written as though it did—meaning that the author believes it happened. Whereas Neo might take a more allegorical approach, in which the author knows it didn't happen. 

Perhaps the difference is in the ordering: I would say that the events gives birth to the message, whereas Neo might say the message gives birth to the events.

I'll run this idea by you first before expanding.

(April 1, 2023 at 9:13 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Perhaps the difference is in the ordering: I would say that the events gives birth to the message, whereas Neo might say the message gives birth to the events.

Yes, this makes sense. 

It seems to me undeniable that, at least in the New Testament, the authors are basing their narratives on things that happened. Jesus was real, and he had some kind of impact on those around him. The extent to which they then mold the story to conform with traditional hero narratives, or invent details for the purpose of making a point, remains open to interpretation. 

So I suspect that both views are true in part -- events sometimes prompt the narrative, but messaging sometimes prompts fable-like tales. 

I'm reminded of how for hundreds of years philosophers would write dialogues and attribute them to Plato, because they were certain this was something he would have written if he'd had time. By modern standards this is forgery, but they felt that attaching Plato's name was appropriate and justified. Likewise I think that a story like that of the woman taken in adultery (which, if I remember right, is only in John) might have been an invention of the author because he felt it conveyed something true and important about Jesus's message. Or the events of Pentecost might have been "exaggerated for clarity" because some people felt strongly a change in spirit, and the author wanted a dramatic way of depicting that.

And I'm curious about your take on this. We agree it's not intended as disinterested journalism, but exactly what we should call it remains an interesting question.

What The Jew would have done was reject their god for 30 silver, then? Seems like we might be getting too perilously close to the truth about magic book for a committed nut to accept.

(April 2, 2023 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote: And I'm curious about your take on this. We agree it's not intended as disinterested journalism, but exactly what we should call it remains an interesting question.

Let me start by expanding an earlier proposition—that narrative is how we construct reality. What this means is that narrative is how we humans process events and information. If I were to ask you what you did yesterday, what you will respond with is a narrative. Likewise, what journalists do is construct narratives. Narrative emerges when real people experience real events in the world. In other words, narrative is primarily a cognitive feature not a linguistic one. Literary narratives emerge only in the act of communicating.

As for the Bible, my default position is that when an author begins a narrative with "I saw this," I take it at face value, whether or not they are telling the truth. This is the most parsimonious interpretation—I don't multiply authors beyond necessity. However, some books, like Jeremiah and Luke, do mention using a scribe or compiling stories from others. So, the idea of oral transmission before being written down, or of different authorships, is found in the Bible itself.

I've mentioned that narratives are truthlike, or verisimilitudes. To understand what this means, consider the concept of time. Narratives are laid out across "human time" rather than "clock time." This is time as you experienced it, and as you remember it—an abstraction of the real thing. To quote Jerome Bruner, "It is time whose significance is given by the meaning assigned to events within its compass." This is what I mean when I say the Bible is narrative. It isn't written in expository form, like a textbook or encyclopedia. It is written with a point of view, it is embedded across human time, and often written with self at the center of the narration.

(April 1, 2023 at 4:39 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 1, 2023 at 4:04 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: My views may not fall neatly into the literalist or non-literalist camp, but it all depends on where you draw the line. I did a quick search to see what the Adventist church falls under, and the first result said we have a historical/grammatical interpretation of the Bible in general. That seems to mean literalist in the traditional sense, not the fundamentalist sense.

I approach the Bible as narrative—and I don't think many Adventists would disagree with this. This is simply the mode of communication that the Bible undertakes. Where this perhaps becomes more interesting is when you explore the nature of narrative and borrow some insights from the cognitive sciences. For example, one of my favorite papers out there is The Narrative Construction of Reality by the psychologist Jerome Bruner.

Here is a great quote from that paper:

"Unlike the constructions generated by logical and scientific procedures that can be weeded out by falsification, narrative constructions can only achieve 'verisimilitude.' Narratives, then, are a version of reality whose acceptability is governed by convention and 'narrative necessity' rather than by empirical verification and logical requiredness, although ironically we have no compunction about calling stories true or false."

That word, verisimilitude, is perhaps the most important word I can use to describe the Bible. In other word, narrative isn't exactly true or false, but rather "truthlike."

I’m happy to agree that the Bible is truthlike, in much the same way that a tribute band is ‘not the real thing, but an incredible simulation’.

‘Truthiness’ might be closer, I think.

Boru

If it must be likened to the truth, then it could only be because it is not true.     

So whatever must be called truth-like must be the same as any other falsehood,  with the exception that these particular falsehoods have gained such a intellectually dishonest following by those who are loath to admit it is total falsehood even when it’s falsehood is hard to deny outright,  that they attempt an rhetorical out-flanking maneuver by asserting this particular falsehood is somehow so true that it can be undeniably false and yet still be even truer than true.

Truthlike is one of the oddest words and arguments I have heard on this forum.

smh

These are not strange concepts to anyone in the cognitive sciences. Narrative is a big topic of study in the field, from neuroscience to anthropology.

I just googled the term verisimilitude and found a Wikipedia entry for it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude

And one in the Stanford Encyclopedia:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthlikeness/

Here's a quick video introduction, starting at 5:23

https://youtu.be/walCelgli1M?t=323

(April 2, 2023 at 12:36 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: These are not strange concepts to anyone in the cognitive sciences. Narrative is a big topic of study in the field, from neuroscience to anthropology.

I just googled the term verisimilitude and found a Wikipedia entry for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimilitude

No one denies things can seem like the truth or close to the truth when it is neither the truth or nor closer to the truth than an infinite number of  other propositions that were not accorded the same consideration.     The question is do you go on pretending when you have better ways to tell whether it is true or not then “seems”?


In other words, in what precise way is the Bible intrinsically truer than any extremely loosely “historic” works of self-admitted fiction?

That lots of people believe it is a result of historic accident.    It in no way add truth value to the Bible itself.   At most one might argue those who built upon this foundation of sand may have erected some facade containing parts worth preserving.   That does not turn the foundation itself from sand to stone.    Rather then pretending such facade is somehow not on sand, it seems if the facade is worth preserving, it is worth the effort to shift it on to a truly solid foundation that doesn’t require willful blindness to endure..

(April 2, 2023 at 12:39 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The question is do you go on pretending when you have better ways to tell whether it is true or not then “seems”?

I'm not sure you can escape narrative so easily. It is engrained into your perception of reality. It is how your brain creates coherence out of happenings in the world. The best you can do is exchange one narrative for another. Perhaps with more accurate details, but not necessarily a truer story.

Quote: In other words, in what precise way is the Bible intrinsically truer than any extremely loosely “historic” works of self-admitted fiction?

Hmm I think that's a good question. There are nonfiction narratives (like personal accounts) vs fictional narratives (like Harry Potter). So, perhaps, instead of asking if the Bible is "truer" it is more useful to first ask which kind of account it is. I side with the traditional interpretation, that these are by and large intended to communicate personal accounts.

(April 2, 2023 at 1:12 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'm not sure you can escape narrative so easily. It is engrained into your perception of reality. It is how your brain creates coherence out of happenings in the world. The best you can do is exchange one narrative for another. Perhaps with more accurate details, but not necessarily a truer story.

if accuracy does not make a story truer, what does?   the stronger desire to pretend it was true?   a more complacent cavalier attitude towards the fact that it is just words without relation to facts and can be interpreted anyway you want and you so happy to fear your interpretation is somehow “true”?

A long history of holders of certain interpretation being empowered to browbeat holders of all other interpretations so as to create a milieu in which their interpretation can be freely passed off as truer than true?