As I have repeatedly argued, if you don't have a scenario, you don't have
history. In the case of Arthur, we don't really have a history and thus the
truth of the story is really at issue. Some people don't believe that there
was an Arthur, some believe in an Arthur but not a round table. Since there
is no observational evidence of Arthur's existence, he is by definition in
pre-history, Legends can't be considered as logical unless you wish to deal
with legends of dragons, Beowulf, Grindal etc.
>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.
I understand archeology quite well and in general archeologists don't
believe legends or their detail. Archeologists don't really deal in legend
they deal in artifacts. There are no artifacts for Arthur so he and his
round table are not the subject of archeology. While some have suggested
that there is a site for Camelot, it is mostly speculation. This is from a
site on Arthur:
There is much written testimony about the fifth century
in Britain. Some of it is contemporary, but,
unfortunately, very little of it is indigenous to Britain.
Almost all of it, at least in some points, is
contradictory. It seems that the farther in time we move
away from the period, the more information we get, but
we are always compelled to wonder how reliable the
sources are, and what they are really based on.
Any attempt, then, to pin down an exact chronology of
the period is a speculative enterprise, at best.
Britannia's "Arthurian Timeline" falls into that
category, as well. No effort was made to adhere to any
traditional dating schemes, except where there is firmly
established documentation for them. Nor did we feel it
to be incumbent upon us to follow, in every last detail,
the viewpoints of the well-known scholars of the
period, as their viewpoints are often at variance with
one another.
http://www.britannia.com/history/timearth.html
I especially like the part where it says that we get more information the
further away in time we are from Arthur. (sarcasm mode on) That is the sign
of a real valuable logic of legend. (sarcasm mode off) If applied to the
Genesis, not only do we get more of God's revelation with time as each
author adds more, we also would be getting more details. How can such a
logic of legends be depended upon to deliver any truth, other than the
views of the various people who embellished the original story??? You want
to derive theological truth from some situation like that? I don't.
>
>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".
Fine, so how do the emotions of the listeners add to God's message? This is
not a very comforting thought. If we combine the views of you and Paul, we
get God conceding his message to the emotions of the listeners. (sarcasm
mode on) That makes me feel really good about God's message. (sarcasm mode
off.)
>
>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.
Better hash out of the social and literary context than have a divine
revelation that is altered generation after generation by the 'logic of
legends' and the emotions of the reciters and listeners to the point where
the message is opposite of that of the original message. How do you know
that the original revelation wasn't, "There are thousands of Gods," which
was then changed aftermany generations to 'The Lord our God, he is one'?
You don't. Your logic of legends allows this type of transformation in
accordance with what happened with Arthur.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution