Glenn said:
>Logic depends upon the truth or falsity of a given statement.
My comment:
Logic also depends on defining terms. The term "legend" differs
from the term "historically accurate account". Thus, if one judges
a legend from the "logic of a historically accurate account", then
you get into statements like ...
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.
My comment:
So can we claim that the legend of King Arthur pertains to events
that actually occurred? Most archaeologists would. In addition,
the relation of "legend details" to "details found in archaeology"
are a source of insight and interest. However, that relation is
ambiguous. For example, the 'round table' of legend may correspond to
a 'long table' that may have existed at the time of interest.
In other words, there may be correspondences, but these correspondences
are not direct. There are a few reasons for that, which I will
speculate on later.
The ambiguous relation between detail and 'what it corresponds to'
is not part of the "logic of a historically accurate account".
In saying that a detail in a legend is "false", you reject the possibility
of indirect correspondences or evocative statements. To archaeologists,
these statements provide clues to appreciating and understanding
real events.
This is what I mean by the metaphor of the "logic of legend" and
the "logic of historically accurate accounts".
To go into a little more detail, I think that a wide variety of
alterations of direct correspondences occur in a narrative that
is legend. For example, scenes may be altered and inserted to
evoke the emotions of listeners (answering the question: How did
the character feel about this), to explain the motives of characters,
to relate moral conclusions... and so forth. These alterations
would not be acceptable (would be "false") for a "historically
accurate account".
In addition, I do not believe that these alterations, insertions
(and possible deletions) does not mean that there is no relation
between the story and an actual event - what I call historicity.
The exploration of that relation is what archaeolgists do as
part of their discipline.
Thus, to me concordism strives to show that the early chapters
of Genesis complement the evolutionary record (and visa versa)
without making hash out of the social and literary context.
Ray