Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ron Snider <sarasotapt AT comcast.net>]

> Ron,
>
> I feel you're making another assumption here, namely that if an author is 
> taking on the persona of someone else in writing that they must be 'lying'. 
> In our world today, we call it 'fiction', not 'lies', and we often consider 
> such literature to be among the classics (e.g., 'I, Claudius' by Robert 
> Graves, or 'Robinson Crusoe' by Daniel Defoe). There is a difference between 
> fiction and lies. Some fiction is lying, while most fiction is simply 
> creative writing/expression. Would you call all fiction 'lies'? Jesus told 
> fictional tales; would you classify them as 'lies'? If you resort to 'taking 
> things at face value', then I'd argue you need to read literature with a bit 
> more vigour and rigour, and in fact probably don't use that standard for most 
> fictional literature. And, in fact, it would be easy to argue that fiction is 
> often the vehicle of truth - in fact, most Christians would argue that for 
> Jesus' parables. Literature is not legislation. It is creative expression, 
> and author
>  s usually employ their creativity to get their point across. To put it in a 
> very crude manner, we often tell 'lies' in order to express the truth (can't 
> remember who originally said that).
>   
I suspect that (there I go assuming again) you really are not advocating 
telling lies to express the truth...that would be a pretty convoluted 
system for expressing the truth.  I know that in my daily experience, 
people (myself included) do not generally engage in lying to express the 
truth.  I do recognize that parable are fictional stories, but as James 
pointed out, they are clear in their context and are not ambiguous.  
Your repeated use of the terms "in fact" may be facts that you accept, 
but are you really prepared to argue as a fact that you know what "most 
Christian" think or advocate?

> Your question about whether there is any other biblical literature that 
> employs this type of technique reveals another assumption: that you require 
> more than one example of it to exist within a confined corpus before you 
> believe it might be possible. But what if there is only one example of it in 
> the corpus? You are demanding the evidence take a particular shape before 
> accepting it as evidence. This, I fear, is not sound methodology, even though 
> I understand the sentiment behind it. I realise there is safety in numbers, 
> but what are we to do if there is only one example of what you're talking 
> about? Something can be legitimately unique.
>   
I must respectfully disagree, my question revealed no assumption or 
bias, it was merely a question about whether or not this is found in the 
Hebrew Bible.  For one to attribute this to an entire book does beg the 
question as to whether or not any other such book, or even example of 
it, exists in the corpus.  While there are things that are legitimately 
unique, to argue for this view, with no other precedent is not sound 
methodology in my opinion.  That simply means that if you see it that 
way, and the whole world sees it another way, you have just seen 
something unique.  However, what if the rest of the world is right and 
you are wrong?  I am not demanding the evidence to take any shape, I 
just want some indisputable evidence.  Any good thinker bases his 
conclusions on evidence, but there must be some evidence in order to 
evaluate.
> But, to answer your question, I think there is more than example of fictional 
> first-person narrative in the biblical corpus: Daniel 4, and 7-12. But that 
> may open another can of worms which I don't wish to open. I fear you may also 
> disagree with me on that one, leaving us back at square one.
>   
You are correct, I do not agree that Daniel is a late work (Maccabean 
period, as some assert), nor that it has a fictional author.  I believe 
the author to be one Daniel, who was taken captive under Nebuchadnezzar, 
served in the Babylonian court, and who continued to serve under the 
Medo-Persians.

It seems that many people simply postulate unknown authors, writing lies 
to express the truth, and that strikes me as odd, given the fact that I 
do think the Bible is to be taken at face value.  I recognize that every 
type of literary form is used within the Bible, there are parables, 
allegory, poetry, hyperbole, sarcasm, and the like.  However, if there 
is any concept of inspiration involved, then it is my contention is that 
one must first consider it in a literal, historical sense.  This is the 
norm for all writings, only then are there any exegetical controls.  
Otherwise, it is simply the whim of the reader or interpreter.  A good 
book on the subject of hermeneutics is one by Ramm on Biblical 
Interpretation. 

I may be just dumb enough to think that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, 
Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of
Songs, Daniel wrote Daniel, and Paul wrote a bunch of the New Testament 
(although the latter is not germane to this list).  OMG, what if it 
turns out that I was right?  ;-)

Regards,

Ron Snider