Dan's epistemology (Christian on Shakespeare)
mc2499 at mclink.it
Sat Mar 3 14:40:13 EST 2001
>>>>> 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
> select writes about his character(s) from what Shakespeare writes about
>Sorry folks. I can't resist: do we really know who "Shakespeare" was?
Yes, we can. Besides the contemporary witnesses on record, there are
registry records, land transactions, and various signatures in appropriate
places which are compatible one with another, despite the differences in
>Baconians out there? With all due respect, some of Ian's arguments about
>certainty of authorship with Shakespeare in *contrast* with that of
>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...
I think, Christian, you ought to investigate the situation before making
these comments! We know **so much more** about this man than any Hebrew or
NT figure you'd like to mention. We even have the guy's will which confirms
other things from other sources about him.
(I'll be back with the other...)
More information about the b-hebrew