Costco doesn’t have book sections; there’s simply a category listed on the price tag which is stuck to each book. So, theoretically, they could have as many categories as they have books. I was just there but didn’t think to check what the tag says now. I would think they’d have switched it to “religion” or something like that. “Non-fiction” is not a reasonable compromise at all.
2 Likes
Pervuasive
1 Like
Well, it has to qualify as a historical document, not as written by a modern intellectual, but as a product of history, much like the dead sea scrolls. Can t see any way around that. Otherwise, how does it exist at all?
I agree that “fiction” is an inappropriate label. I would prefer “outdated nonsense”.
4 Likes
I honestly don’t know what the fuss is. These people must be incredibly thick.
God knows the difference, and it appears, in his omni-science, that he did not cause the label to be changed prior to its attachment to the bibble. He obviously doesn’t mind.
So why should puny humans? I tell you, when they go to the Pirly Gates, they’re in big trouble with God.
3 Likes
You could say that about a lot of groups. It’s the whole point of stereotyping.
1 Like
Cf. Herodotus, the medieval chroniclers, and most other writers of history up until the archivist historians of the nineteenth century. Lots of metaphors, judgments, myths, fiction, throughout, a veritable mass of whimsical improbabilities, if you will. Yet still history.
I wouldn’t mind if a bookstore classified all its religious texts under the umbrella of “Good Books,” except that presupposes that any or all of them are actually Good.
“Scriptures” would do nicely.
Sadly the last 3 or 4 hotels I stayed in were devoid of Gideon-droppings.
I do believe the definition of “subjective fact” is “fiction.” There’s only one kind of fact: a fact.
1 Like
Call it either “religious” or “reference.” Although, the “fiction” tag isn’t wrong.
I think “religion” or “spirituality” would be fine categories. That wouldn’t offend the people who take it as word-for-word literal truth, or the people who take it more as a set of moral folk tales and good teachings, or the people who think it’s a total load of made-up junk, or anyone anywhere in between. Everyone wins. No one feels like the sticker or the store is belittling their beliefs.
1 Like
That’s a very strange usage of the phrase “historical document” and I’m not surprised IMB was confused by what you meant – I didn’t understand you either.
It’s folklore/mythology. That categorization is consistent with everything you’ve said about it so far.
1 Like
Sure, but it’s not as though people uncritically accept Herodotus’ second hand accounts of Athena appearing on the battlefield as historical fact. Herodotus is cross-checked against other historians and against the archaeological record. When historians do that with Herodotus we find that in terms of claims of fact Herodotus is actually pretty damned reliable. When historians do that with the Bible…not so reliable.
4 Likes
It’s called the Bible for a reason, as in, it’s a book of books (THE book of books if you’re Christian). There aren’t too many genres it doesn’t embrace: fiction, history, scripture, poetry, propaganda, prophecy, wisdom literature, apothegm, origin story, natural history, geography, political history, biography, hagiography, dietary regimen, sexual regimen, apologetics, and so on. Just read the darn thing, it’s a 1,500-page book with all the force and page-turning excitement of a 1,200-page book.
5 Likes
I think you’re referring to Herodotus’s story of the Athenian dictator Pisisratus’s (the guy who established a stable, canonical text of Homer) dressing-up of a tall Athenian woman as Athena, and his convincing her to proclaim him the divine tyrant of Athens, leading to his reinstatement after having been deposed. And this is generally accepted as historical fact.
Secondhand reports are of supreme value to a historian or anthropologist. It’s not that Herodotus is always (or even often) true: he himself is often skeptical of the stories he relates. It’s that he talks about things that it’s reasonable to believe that people thought were true, as they were talked about a lot, celebrated, narrated, etc. Herodotus is much closer to modern-day cultural anthropology than academic history, but that’s actually kind of cool, as he’s a great read and the stories are rich, diverting, dramatic, and often hilarious. When archaeology and others agree with him, so much the better.
The Bible’s accuracy or inaccuracy presents the same valuable material as Herodotus: not the truth as defined by academics, but what people at the time believed to be true.
And “religion” or “spirituality” would make more sense from a shopping stand-point,too. If I’m looking for a non-fiction book to read because I dig a good biography or history or I’m fascinated by science, the Bible probably isn’t going to be a good product match for my interests. If I’m looking for a fiction book to read, I’m probably going to be more into a sci-fi or a fantasy or a mystery or a romance novel. The Bible isn’t going to be a good fit for my purchasing desires. Products should be labeled from a perspective of helping customers find products they want to buy as easily as possible.
1 Like
killjoy.
This doesn’t seem to address my point at all, which is that when the factual content of Herodotus is compared to the factual content of the Bible, Herodotus comes out looking a lot more like actual history than the Bible does.
Of course I agree that second-hand reports are valuable and of course I agree that Herodotus did not abide by modern standards of historical research. I never claimed otherwise. I never even implied otherwise.
But Herodotus is not only valuable as a source of what people believed at the time – his histories have been validated by independent sources to be worthwhile accounts of history in their own right. Rather completely unlike the Christian Bible.
When historians want to know stuff about ancient Greece Herodotus is actually a useable source. When historians want to know stuff about first century Palestine the Bible is probably not so useable.
2 Likes
That may have been the weirdest youtube video I’ve ever seen, that wasn’t a man smoking a pipe.
1 Like
