Re: Fable telling
George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Fri, 29 Oct 1999 07:34:15 -0400
mortongr@flash.net wrote:
.....................................
> >What Glenn said:
> >
> >> The legend of King Arthur contains details of a big round table,
> >chivalry etc. The time at which the legend took place, I.e. the event
> >the legend is associated with, had no chivalry. That detail is false.
> >and it is unlikely that there was a round table, so that detail is
> >also probably false.
> >
>
> As I have repeatedly argued, if you don't have a scenario, you don't have
> history. In the case of Arthur, we don't really have a history and thus the
> truth of the story is really at issue. Some people don't believe that there
> was an Arthur, some believe in an Arthur but not a round table. Since there
> is no observational evidence of Arthur's existence, he is by definition in
> pre-history, Legends can't be considered as logical unless you wish to deal
> with legends of dragons, Beowulf, Grindal etc. ..........................................
There are at least 2 fairly trustworthy (for this - not everything) sources
(_Annales Cambriae_ and Nennius) which support the existence of Arthur & his association
with a battle of Mount Badon (which we have no idea of the location of) sometime in the
1st 1/2 of the 6th century. Beyond that it's speculative & of course virtually all
the medieval details were added much later.
......................................
> I especially like the part where it says that we get more information the
> further away in time we are from Arthur. (sarcasm mode on) That is the sign
> of a real valuable logic of legend. (sarcasm mode off) If applied to the
> Genesis, not only do we get more of God's revelation with time as each
> author adds more, we also would be getting more details. How can such a
> logic of legends be depended upon to deliver any truth, other than the
> views of the various people who embellished the original story??? You want
> to derive theological truth from some situation like that? I don't. ......................................
If all of Scripture is authoritative witness to revelation then what later
biblical writers say about Genesis (e.g., Paul in Romans 5) certainly gives further
insight into the significance of it.
This is also the case when a later writer adds "details" which are
non-historical in order to make a theological point. E.g., the exaggerated sizes of
armies (e.g., 2 Chron.13:3, 14:9) & amounts of wealth (I Chron.22:14,) in Chronicles
are part of the Chronicler's way of turning the history of the Davidic monarchy
in Samuel-Kings into a vision of the Kingdom of God. The _omission_ of all the seamy
details about David & Solomon serves the same function. Of course {sarcasm mode on}
Glenn will be able to explain that the Ethiopian army of 10^6 men (unmentioned in
Kings) is really quite reasonable and that David could easily have had 4000 tons of
gold. {Sarcasm mode off}
Again the disclaimer: The point is not that the Bible is wrong or contradicts
itself. It is that we should not force our assumptions of ways in which truth can be
conveyed on Scripture.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/