Bart Ehrman and pretending to believe

[outhouse]

I think, the prima facie reading of the first person plural is that the author of the text numbered among those designated as "we"

And that is what I understand to be rhetorical participation.

[Secret Alias]

I've told you before you misuse the term 'rhetoric.' In this case 'rhetorical participation' is very unusual and when it is used it is generally a technical term which goes back to the literal meaning of rhētorikē (tekhnē) = (the art of) rhetoric

https://books.google.com/books?id=2gF6A ... 22&f=false

[outhouse]

I've told you before you misuse the term 'rhetoric.'

As I understand from my Harvard professor Laura Nasrallah, rhetorical prose was a Aristotelian literary mean's of persuasion used by most authors from this period.

I would highly recommend a class on this topic as it was an eye opener on all the text written from this period.


The author used the "art" of rhetoric in his literary participation, that he probably never participated in. They used this prose to build their authority as eye witnesses when they never were.

They claim as being in places, to have seen things, to have heard things, to be people they are not, as literary methods of persuasion.

I would also add this was a community writing as a single person.

[Secret Alias]

So why reference this idea when you speak of 'rhetorical participation'? Surely you can find a better way of expressing yourself. Lurking in your use of the terminology is always this negative association - viz. 'lies' = empty rhetoric. It's an unsophisticated way of employing language and terminology. On its own, a phrase like 'rhetorical participation' simply implies a 'discussion' or the act of discussing something. Most people who engage in academic discussion (i.e. the 'we' passages in Luke) know the original meaning of rhetoric so 'rhetorical participation' doesn't naturally mean what you seem to think it means - i.e. 'only saying they participated.' As I noted many times, your use of consistent of rhetoric to mean 'something made up,' 'lies,' or empty rhetoric is distracting.

[outhouse]

As I noted many times, your use of consistent of rhetoric to mean 'something made up,' 'lies,' or empty rhetoric is distracting.

Ah but the Prose I use covers a wide general area without a general claim of certainty. If I claim "lies" its BS Stephen because I or we do not know. "Same with made up"


Were not talking about people describing reality here, were talking about people "persuading others in context" That is not "just" a lie or "just" fiction or "just" made up, hell sometimes truth is much stranger then fiction.

When it comes to persuading others in context, things like truth and lies and accuracy and fiction are secondary in some cases. From what I have seen there is only a handful here that understand the first thing about this prose. Most here don't understand the main literary compositional techniques that envelops the whole study here.


I do not have the literary prowess you do, not even close. Nor do I pretend to.

I do understand the definition.

rhet·o·ric.


1.the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.