Wait a minute - unless I'm mistaken, a parable is v short (often only a few sentences?). I meant an entire book, or a chapter/verse at least, that could be considered as a fictional story.

(e.g. Samson is >30 verses in Judges:16)

Not in the Bible. Some claim Job and/or Jonah are fictions but there's no evidence of that. Lots of fictitious gospels from the 2nd century on.

As should be fairly obvious, I see only very poor evidence that this should somehow be possible. Basically I would have to accept it on such a poor standard of evidence, that I would have to believe a very wide array of fantastic stories. I can also add that though my military stint by no means makes me an expert on all things tactical, I do have rudimentary training in riot control and thus some experience with melee and crowds. That a person should somehow be enabled with the physical qualities necessary to bring down 1000 trained men in melee is... erm... quite the tale. As far as "miracles" go, this is huge.

Basically all you have is a biblical account, some historicity that the person the story is spun on might possibly have lived and the (inevitably) the claim that "I can't prove the story wrong".

Which is fine. I have no problems rejecting stories spun so lightly.

The question is whether God can enable someone. Do you agree that if the God of the Bible exists he can do so? If not, why not, since surely creating a universe is harder than helping Samson kill 1000 people.

Be clear. Is it your position that if God exists, he can't do this?

You're not really in a position to ask for clarity, as any obscurity regarding this is your own doing. When you ask someone "Do you believe [...]?"... you are not asking them "Can you believe [...]?"

Obviously, if the God of the bible exists he could enable Samson's feat. That is after all, what the bible states God did.

I will grant you I shouldn't have used the word can't without further investigation.

But you said before:

So the Bible shouldn't lose credibility because of the story of Samson. Which was all I was trying to show.

Some points:

tames asks above "Do you believe Samson killed a 1000 philistines with the jawbone of a donkey in a single battle? Considering your wording here, I think it is nothing but fair to expect you to answer this question."

He's right. And while drawing attention to the wording -- he immediately drops the ball. For as the question is phrased, the only viable answer is obviously "Yes, I do!" Consider a structural equivalent: "Do you believe Sherlock Holmes had an assistant named Watson who was somewhat slow wittet." Again - the only serious answer is "Of course I do - that's what Conan Doyle's book says." (If anyone wants to follow up on this is: the relevant discussion is Truth in Fiction; Peter Rabinowitz, Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation, Ithaka/London 1987 is a good primer)

What he meant to have asked was probably something like "Do you believe that Samson was a historical figure, and that this historical figure indeed at some lush morning slaughtered 1000 men with a jawbone?" THIS is an entirely different story and I'd have to say something like "While I won't deny the possibility of some herkulesish person having lived at that time, slaughtering a whole bunch of philistines practically empty-handed, the story as written in the bible seems to have undergone significant expansion/exaggeration." The relevant point to note here is, however, that it's a futher claim one would have to argue for that truth and historical truth are synonymous. When dealing with literature, they rarely are.

As to the point "Samson has traditionally been claimed to be historical as it is part of Judges" - this enters the question of historical veracity of scripture and is actually a two-part question: 1) Are the so-called historical books of the OT historiography? 2) To what extend are they historically accurate. Now, "traditionally" is a rather broad term. "Traditionally" it has also been claimed that the Israelites were fleeing as a 150'000 strong caravan 40 years through the desert. So if one wanted to judge the historicity of Samson based on the placement of the story, one would have to deal with 1) and 2). Emerging consensus is: 1 - yes; 2 - to a limited extend. The relevant point here is that for something to be historiography, it actually doesn't have to be historically true (if that were so, Thukydides would not count as Historiography, despite him generally to be referred to as one or the first historian). It DOES have to follow certain rules of the genre, among them obviously that the text is (to the authors best knowledge and ability) attempting to display historical truth. If I think the text is following those rules of the genre, then it's historiography. Whether it's also factually correct, is a different matter altogether.

Regarding Jonah and the question of fictional stories, written for entertainment etc. I actually do believe that Jonah fits that bill. Here's some literature on the matter if someone is interested:

• Burrows, Millar (1970): The Literary Category of the Book of Jonah. In: Harry Thomas Frank und William L. Reed (Hg.): Tanslating & Understanding the Old Testament. Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May. Nashville; New York: Abingdon Press, S. 80–107.
• Good, Edwin M. (1981): Irony in the Old Testament. 2. Aufl. Sheffield: Almond Press (3).
• Halpern, Baruch (2005): Biblical versus Greek Historiography: A Comparison. In: Gerhard von Rad, Erhard Blum, William Johnstone, Christoph Markschies und Christof Hardmeier (Hg.): Das Alte Testament - ein Geschichtsbuch? Beiträge des Symposiums "Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne" anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901-1971), Heidelberg, 18.-21. Oktober 2001. Münster: Lit, S. 101–127.
• Holbert, John C. (1981): "Deliverance Belongs To Jahweh!": Satire in the Book of Jonah. In: JSOT 21, S. 59–81.
• Richter, David H. (2005): Genre, Repetition, Temporal Order: Some Aspects of Biblical Narratology. In: James Phelan und Peter J. Rabinowitz (Hg.): A companion to narrative theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., S. 285–298.
• Spangenberg, I.J (1996): Jonah and Qohelet: Satire Versus Irony. In: OTEs 9 (3), S. 495–511.
• van Heerden, Willie (1992): Humour and the Interpretation of the book of Jonah. In: OTEs 5, S. 375–388.
• Miles, John R. (1990): Laughing At The Bible: Jonah as Parody. In: Yehudah T. Radai (Hg.): On humour and comic in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press (JSOT.SS, 92), S. 203–215.

The bolded is a very accessible and forceful exposition of the general thesis. As for other texts - the book of Judith is part of the catholic canon. It starts with: "In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana (Jdt*1:1*RSV)" Historically, this is complete humbug. To an ancient Israelite this sounded comparable to "In the time when Napoleon was Czar in Moskow." If this was intended to be received as historiography, it was done very clumsy indeed. I think it's much more likely that this was meant as a hint to the reader to take what follows not as historical fact. Esther also comes to mind. If one takes the cue "genre" seriously, all of these are in the form of novellae: shortish, self-contained stories. Whether there WAS an Esther at some time - I don't think we'll be able to find out. The way her (potential) existence was used in a literary setting, however, points to what would generally be considered a fictional genre (i.e. novella).

The cue "NT parables" already hits at how to deal with these stories if they were indeed conceived and created as fictional stories: the NT has numerous cases in which Jesus gives his teaching through parables -- stories that make no relevant claim to historical fact and convey his teaching in a both vivid and intentionally ambiguous way. There is no reason at all to assume that this phenomenon can't be at work in the OT as well and only works if it is restricted to a few verses or so.

Finally, just as a personal note: If I believe the OT to be not a clean list of comandments but rather an account of a long, at times excruxiatingly difficult, at times joyful history of a people and it's god - why would I think that joke, laughter, parody etc. is not part of that history and has not found it's way into the bible?

Also, why would anyone in a post-Sookie era not be able to believe that God can endow someone with the power to overcome 1000 philistinians. 1000 ancient warriors vs. Russell Edgington - I take Russell every time. And since Russell is basically a human on V-steorids, why would a human on God-steorids not be at least as effective?

Why did you waste energy writing this?

If you don't don't believe that Samson killed a 1000 philistines in a single battle armed with a jawbone of a donkey, that is fine - and I laud you for it. It doesn't require a laundry list of references to explain why.

Do you believe the story of Samson to be intendedas a joke? Do you think the part where Samson kills 30 people for their clothes is a joke? I can certainly see that kind of humor in a Troma movie, but it is a bold claim to say the bible contains it.

Well, I don't want to win cookies in a debate. I want everyone in the discussion to get the basics straight. As <below> shows, you apparently still haven't.

You did at least read enough to realize that the "laundry list" was regarding Jonah and not Samson, didn't you. Also, you apparently still don't understand the distinction, the exposition of which you labelled "horrible". Given your phrasing, it's impossible to not affirm that Samson killed 1000 philistinians. That is what the story says, after all. I just don't think the story is an accurate historical account of what happened "back that day".

And where did I say or even implied that?

Honestly, if all the argumentative oomph you have against someone actually fluid in the topic, is either issuing blanket statements of "lol, omg u cant be srs" and "so you're saying it's cool to murder people" then that is rather embarrasing.

If it was entertained that Holmes was rather a historical figure (rather than obviously a fictional one), the context of the question is quite different.

I recently read a suggestion that there was sarcasm in Jesus' teachings, illustrated by the recently-discussed laws where entertaining adult thoughts were considered the same as committing adultery, and that hate was considered the same as murder. iirc, the sarcasm was directed at the strictness of the Fathers laws, and that these were hyperbolic ("I wonder how far I can go with these claims!?").

Where have I said "lol, omg u cant be srs" or "so you're saying it's cool to murder people"? Please link to those posts. Misquoting is unacceptable and extremely bad form.

As for the rest of the post, I don't know what to reply. You yourself in that very post said the debate story of Samson was part of a the bigger question regarding historical veracity of the bible. If you didn't mean for this bigger question to have implications regarding the story of Samson, then that's fine. I don't accept criticism for interpreting the post in that manner however.

Sure. That's why I drew attention to the fact that the context does indeed matter (and can't simply be taken for granted). There is an obvious way in which a question about a literary character is true or false: Does the story support or contradict the question. There is a further question about the historicity of the thing.

If you don't keep these two apart, everything starts going to ****, starting with the stringency of your argumentation.

I can't really speak to the question of Jesus and sarcasm/irony. I will say that the fact that the OT is much more "lively" is partially what I find so attractive about it.

Ninja-edits to the rescue, I guess.

I thought my statement made it clear that I was paraphrasing; if you mistook my "" as meaning you sad that verbatim, I apologize.

"I'm sorry, but this is horrible. Why did you waste energy writing this?" ~ "lol, omg u cant be srs"

"so you're saying it's cool to murder people" ~ "Do you believe the story of Samson to be intendedas a joke? Do you think the part where Samson kills 30 people for their clothes is a joke? I can certainly see that kind of humor in a Troma movie, but it is a bold claim to say the bible contains it." + the stuff you erased after your initial post.

Seriously. What?

You paraphrase this:
"Do you believe the story of Samson to be intendedas a joke? Do you think the part where Samson kills 30 people for their clothes is a joke? I can certainly see that kind of humor in a Troma movie, but it is a bold claim to say the bible contains it."

into this:
""so you're saying it's cool to murder people"



That is not a paraphrase. I expect an apology.

To the extend that you feel offended by an insinuation that was not intended - I apologize. To the extend that you wish to gloss over the fact that you edited your posts and now play the innocently misframed victim -

Yes, I sometimes post-edit my posts. My apologies, but I did not know you were posting (had posted?) a reply to it when I did the edit.

This is also why I didn't make a fuzz about your first "paraphrase", even though I hardly agree with your rewrite of that one either (I really dislike words such as "lol" or "srs", to me they imply hand-waving and unnecessary sarcasm), it is true that the original wording was more aggressive.

It doesn't lose consistency, but when invoking the term credibility we are allowed to impose standards of evidence. I can't see the story of Samson passing a fair standard of evidence that would not also make a host of other epics we have long since discarded as mythical pass.

If one wants to argue that the story merely indicates the possibility of a local leader/judge/warrior (or whatnot) who was renowned for his great strength, that is fine. But this is a low impact claim. We don't have to re-address physics to make the theory fit. It doesn't compete against much.

Claiming he was endowed with a divine blessing that made him able to carry city gates (I did some research as well, and the average city gates of the type most likely in question are... substantial) is a high impact claim, and it does compete against many things (biology, physics, military tactics). I would want to see substantial evidence before accepting it as true.

This doesn't follow. Tame_deuces said that including the story of Samson in the Bible decreases its credibility (as an accurate history I assume). Showing that if a god like that in the OT exists, that he could have imbued Samson with strength to kill 1,000 men with a jawbone doesn't show that tame_deuces's point is incorrect. Since such an event is very unusual (even if not impossible), including it in the OT as an historical event would still make the prior probability of the OT being historically accurate lower.

If you look at the phrasing he used I think you will have to admit you are incorrect - this post is also for td's previous.

.

That post wasn't addressed at you? I personally don'T have a problem with being called an ass either - frankly, I find the extend in which slight personal jabs are being used to detract from what was substantively argued somewhat irritating.

Hesitatingly, I'd like to consider Samson's hair. Ancient imaginative art saw the lion's mane or hair as congealed light or that from which was the essence of God. If one goes far back in time during which the human being and the lion were in a more ethereal evolutionary sense one sees this head, with its rays of light, a direct connection with the spiritual world or more to the point that of what we may now call clairvoyance.

The strength of Samson is related to his connectedness with that primal world from which he is representing, in reality, his hair as that to which also fell in an evolutionary sense where the old no longer has precedence.

The lion, the animal with a markedly profuse mane, displays one aspect of the evolution of Man, in which the lion is indeed endowed with this clairvoyance (read lives within the spirit) but does not have the earthly "Ego" as Man who has "fallen" to earth, "Ego laden" in order to work out his schooling or development.

Man, in his development, or evolution, contains the lion nature but this containment is more of a "rejection" of that nature rather than a concatenation of movements to a higher being (ape to man, etc... ala the neo Darwinist s). the human heart has been in the past related to Man and thus we have the "heart of a lion" when related to a knight or similar warrior. The human being contains all of the essential natures of the animal kingdom in the sense of "denial' in that the human being has further roads to travel. this of course, happens in a supersensible or spiritual realm and upon the rejection of the lion or animal natures the animal does indeed precipitate to earth prior to the human being even though the human being was "First". Perusal of Genesis (in one aspect) confirms the human coming to earth after the animal kingdom though in another evolutionary sense(pre earthly) mankind is first and that's another story.

Back to hair; Samsons loss of hair signals a loss of strength, spirit born, and flipping across stories is the story of Cain and Abel. Historical accounts of the two brothers, so to speak, has Abel as more animal like with hair everywhere, rough and ready for Abel is indeed still connected to the heavens. Cain, in contrast, is clean shaven, again so to speak, and has little body hair. the hair spoken to above and here is not a sign of clairvoyance but is the enmeshment of Man in this atavistic clairvoyant state. It would be wrong to consider it just a sign or symbol or metaphor, etc..its the reality.

Abel's sacrifice is accepted while Cain's is rejected and of course Cain kills Abel. Man will lose his clairvoyance and will, in due time, have to work the earth without this substance of heaven. Abel is brought forth into the bosom of God and lives within this God while Cain is rejected to work the earth, oh, consternation. But Cain is now on a mission to return to the God of his Fathers and attain that heavenly home as Cain, noble human warrior, the rejected comes home, refurbished and recreated, a redemptive act.

Up to present times we have societies like the Freemasons calling themselves the "Sons of Cain" and you wonder how they can do this for they plead connection to what one may call a egregious act. the ancient Egyptians had knowledge of this vignette and of course the Freemasons claim historical generation from the Egyptian Mysteries.

the above speaks to the "hair" of Samson but I have nothing to add to the "jawbone of an ass" except to say that ancient tomes or words spoken in the secret chambers of the mysteries rather expand one's perceptions rather than speak to dross of materiality.

Yes i know. Refer to edit.

Biblical inspiration is not real. Not sure if you ever studied up on that. Guess not.