Biblical Writings as Historical Fiction

[SallyF]

Historical fiction is defined as movies and novels in which a story is made up but is set in the past and sometimes borrows true characteristics of the time period in which it is set. https://www.yourdictionary.com/historical-fiction

Historical Fiction:
the genre of literature, film, etc., comprising narratives that take place in the past and are characterized chiefly by an imaginative reconstruction of historical events and personages. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/historical-fiction

The genre of historical fiction in the field of childrens literature
includes stories that are written to portray a time period or
convey information about a specific time period or an historical
event. Usually the event or time period is about 30 years in the
past. http://www.readwritethink.org/files/res ... onDefn.pdf

We successfully determined in an earlier thread that biblical writings can often safely be shown to fit definitions of fantasy fiction.

Can we determine that biblical writings can also be shown to fit definitions of historical fiction ...?

(For purposes of this topic, the definitions off historical fiction given above may mean just whatever we choose them to mean ... and no further explanation is necessary.)

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Or YOU could pick a Jesus story

And demonstrate that it DID happen !

And I'll do the same for Robin Hood.

And then we can have a chat about the development of fiction surrounding characters in literature that may have had historical origins.

And how we can possibly determine the INTENT of long-dead authors.

How's THAT for a deal ?

You go first .

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Or YOU could pick a Jesus story

And demonstrate that it DID happen !

But there is no 'OR'.


I do not have to prove that an account is true in order to demonstrate that your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence (in fact the evidence works against your hypothesis).

And how we can possibly determine the INTENT of long-dead authors.

Since you cannot, I don't see how you can demonstrate that the accounts were written as historical fiction. Especially when what we have from some of those accounts shows just the opposite (such as Luke stating up front that he wrote an account for a specific person of the events that happened after investigating and interviewing, etc.)

You go first

.


Nope.

It is your thread and your claim.





Peace again to you.

[SallyF]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Or YOU could pick a Jesus story

And demonstrate that it DID happen !

But there is no 'OR'.


I do not have to prove that an account is true in order to demonstrate that your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence (in fact the evidence works against your hypothesis).

And how we can possibly determine the INTENT of long-dead authors.

Since you cannot, I don't see how you can demonstrate that the accounts were written as historical fiction. Especially when what we have from some of those accounts shows just the opposite (such as Luke stating up front that he wrote an account for a specific person of the events that happened after investigating and interviewing, etc.)

You go first

.


Nope.

It is your thread and your claim.





Peace again to you.

Well there we are

You can't demonstrate that a SINGLE THING written about the Jesus character is NOT fiction.

And I can't demonstrate that a SINGLE THING written about the Robin Hood character is NOT fiction.

Both may be historical characters.

But their literature looks, quacks and waddles like fiction.

At least the Robin Hood character isn't about to swoop out of Sherwood Forest at any moment at the head of legions of winged Merry Men, and exterminate all but 144,000 non-Saxons !

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

Or YOU could pick a Jesus story

And demonstrate that it DID happen !

But there is no 'OR'.


I do not have to prove that an account is true in order to demonstrate that your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence (in fact the evidence works against your hypothesis).

And how we can possibly determine the INTENT of long-dead authors.

Since you cannot, I don't see how you can demonstrate that the accounts were written as historical fiction. Especially when what we have from some of those accounts shows just the opposite (such as Luke stating up front that he wrote an account for a specific person of the events that happened after investigating and interviewing, etc.)

You go first

.


Nope.

It is your thread and your claim.





Peace again to you.

Well there we are

I don't think we are 'there'.

You can't demonstrate that a SINGLE THING written about the Jesus character is NOT fiction.

It is your thread and your claim and you have to demonstrate that your hypothesis is true. I don't have to do anything. You are trying to turn it around on me, but that is just deflection.

And I can't demonstrate that a SINGLE THING written about the Robin Hood character is NOT fiction.

So?

Both may be historical characters.

But their literature looks, quacks and waddles like fiction.

You have yet to demonstrate that the stories about Christ are historical fiction. Once again, the evidence suggests the opposite.

At least the Robin Hood character isn't about to swoop out of Sherwood Forest at any moment at the head of legions of winged Merry Men, and exterminate all but 144,000 non-Saxons !

Well, neither is Christ, but again that has nothing to do with your claim of historical fiction.




Peace again to you.

[SallyF]

Bill may have "believed" he was writing genuine history.

Bill may have "intended" his "histories" to be taken as genuine history.

Biblical propagandists MAY have had the same beliefs and intentions.

Bill and the propagandists are BOTH proven WRONG in certain historical details.

Bill may have his name on the title page

But certain scholarly folks say Bill DIDN'T write all the stuff with his name on it.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul et al may have their names on the title pages

But certain scholarly folks say they have NO IDEA who actually wrote the stuff and that some of it is fraudulently attributed.

And NOT A SOUL ever demonstrates that "God" had anything to do with so much as a verse of any of it.

Nonetheless, certain folks still dress up in biblical and Shakespearean costumery and pretend to be characters who may just be make-believe.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 25 by SallyF]

Bill may have "believed" he was writing genuine history.

Really? Do you have any evidence that would suggest William Shakespeare may have believed he was writing genuine history?

[SallyF]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 25 by SallyF]

Bill may have "believed" he was writing genuine history.

Really? Do you have any evidence that would suggest William Shakespeare may have believed he was writing genuine history?

Well NO, I don't !

But just one whisker of evidence from you that just one biblical fable is non-fiction

And you'll sweep me away like God's broom of destruction

[tam]

Peace again to you!

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 25 by SallyF]

Bill may have "believed" he was writing genuine history.

Really? Do you have any evidence that would suggest William Shakespeare may have believed he was writing genuine history?

Well NO, I don't !

But just one whisker of evidence from you that just one biblical fable is non-fiction

And you'll sweep me away like God's broom of destruction

I don't need to do anything to show that you have no evidence to support your claim. You just admitted it.





Peace again to you.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 28 by tam]

Sooo

If I HADN'T admitted than I have no evidence that Bill MAY have believed he was writing genuine history (or "scripture")

You COULD have demonstrated that at least ONE biblical fable is non fiction ?


BTW, I didn't make a claim in the OP I asked a question.

To which Member Difflugia and others have given superb answers that directly answer the OP directly.

Sally
Slave of Autonomous Skepticism

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 28 by tam]

Sooo

If I HADN'T admitted than I have no evidence that Bill MAY have believed he was writing genuine history (or "scripture")

You COULD have demonstrated that at least ONE biblical fable is non fiction ?

No, these two things are not connected. Whether I could demonstrate something or not, you cannot demonstrate that the bible is historical fiction (which answers the question you asked). I then provided evidence which supports the opposite (but that is not even necessary, if you cannot provide evidence that it is historical fiction).

BTW, I didn't make a claim in the OP I asked a question.

You did ask a question, yes.

I answered it in my first post on this thread.



Peace again to you.