Dan's epistemology (unfortunately, long)

Christian M. M. Brady cbrady at tulane.edu
Sat Mar 3 14:27:46 EST 2001

On 3/3/01 10:50 AM, "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 at mclink.it> wrote:

>>>>> What got put into the mouth of Jesus doesn't equal what Jesus
>>>>> said. You are historicizing literary figures. Do you think
>>>>> Shakespeare's Richard III is the real Richard III?
>>>> Richard III is obviously *intended* by its *author* as a
>>>> non-historical characterization in drama.
>>> When you don't have anything other than the text (or the
>>> performance) you can't be so smart.
>> Yes you can, Ian. Skakespeare's works were presented to people
>> and written for people who knew what genre it was (some
>> exceptions maybe).
> I must take it that you are refusing to understand, Dan.
> You show no mechanism to separate what the particular gospel writer you may
> select writes about his character(s) from what Shakespeare writes about his
> character(s).

Sorry folks. I can't resist: do we really know who "Shakespeare" was? Any
Baconians out there? With all due respect, some of Ian's arguments about the
certainty of authorship with Shakespeare in *contrast* with that of biblical
authors assume a lot of a man about whom we know very little and whom some
believe did not write the literature attributed to him...


cbrady @ tulane.edu
³The University is a Paradise, Rivers of Knowledge are there, Arts and
Sciences flow from thence. Counsell Tables are Horti conclusi, (as it is
said in the Canticles) Gardens that are walled in, and they are Fontes
signati, Wells that are sealed up; bottomless depths of unsearchable
Counsels there.² 
-John Donne. 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list