(June 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm)dtango Wrote: ...
The point is what the fiction maker believed of his fiction characters.
An author believes nothing of his characters. He invents them and makes them ALL they are.
Quote:If the Priestly writer or the Elohist or any redactor changed some elements of the original story (fiction or not does not matter),
What original story? Why are you assuming something which is not evidence? That is not rational. Trying to create an argument in favor of a desired conclusion is not a rational process. It is a logical fallacy.
Quote:then there is something he did not like or he did not like others to read.
All the Y and P crap is no more than an excuse to make the OT as old as possible as it separates them in time and calls them traditions to imply they are old.
Rather you get two or three writers on the job and a week later an editor puts them together. The simplest explanation is always best.
Quote:Fiction does not use real persons but describes real situations and events that took place in the time of the writer or in the past. When someone does not want others to know about those events or actions, then there is something real behind fiction.
Were I do apply your description to Starship Troopers or the Wizard of Oz what conclusion would I reach? There is no basis to assume there is anything real behind any story. The search for the kernel of truth starts with the assumption there is on in the first place. Just where in Kansas is Oz?
