Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WinAce · 05-15-2003, 03:57 AM

I'm just curious, is there any kind of concensus in Greco-Roman scholarship on the subject of where the myths of demigods like Herc and Perseus came from? Where they based on real warriors whose exploits became wildly exaggerrated, made up from whole cloth, ... ?

Evangelion · 05-15-2003, 06:36 AM

No, they were all borrowed from pre-existing mythological traditions. The Greeks had absolutely no original ideas whatsoever; they simply purloined their religion from the Egptians, Sumerians, Estruscans, Mesopotamians, Chaldeans, Persians and Babylonians.

Also, aliens were involved.

Toto · 05-15-2003, 11:12 AM

Classical scholars might speculate about a person behind the historical Hercules, but they all realize there is insufficient evidence to reconstruct one. I suspect that anyone who tried to find the original layer of Hercules behind the myths would be laughed at.

If you google "historical Hercules" you find: this :

Quote:

The historical theory�according to which all the persons mentioned in mythology were once real human beings, and the legend, and fabulous traditions relating to them were merely the additions and embellishments of later times�which was so popular with scholars of the last century, has been altogether abandoned.

Under the historical point of view the gods are mere deified mortals, either heroes who have been deified after their death, or Pontiff-chieftains who have passed themselves off for gods, and who, it is gratuitously supposed, found people stupid enough to believe in their pretended divinity. This was the manner in which formerly, writers explained the mythology of nations of antiquity but a method that pre-supposed a historical Crishna, a historical Osiris, a historical Mithra, a historical Hercules, a historical Apollo, or a historical Thor, was found untenable, and therefore does not, at the present day, stand in need of a refutation. As a writer of the early part of the present century said: "We shall never have an ancient history worthy of the perusal of men of common sense, till we cease treating poems as history, and send back such personages as Hercules, Theseus, Bacchus, etc., to the heavens, whence their history is taken, and whence they never descended to the earth."

and this

Quote:

Hercules....Who was this guy?

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then should they not act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?

Take this one example for instance. Examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the historicity of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus, making it hypocritical.

Note how Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules was born from a God (Zeus) and a mortal virgin mother (Alcmene). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules was perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the 'evidence' of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have mention of Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities, so Josephus mentions Hercules in his 'Antiquities' (see 1.15, 8.5.3, 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Crestus, he also mentions Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him?

People consider Hercules a myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. Christianity and its churches, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. People want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical 'experts' around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the 'experts' words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend almost solely on the evidence itself and not just because he/she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence. This being said, we have no solid evidence to call this...a fact. It will remain...a belief.

Toto · 05-15-2003, 11:15 AM

Oh - and there's this.

lpetrich · 05-15-2003, 12:39 PM

I'm not sure where that carrying-a-cross bit came from.

But to me, Hercules has some things over Jesus Christ -- in some ways, he was more of an achiever -- and he was not big on using magic powers, as JC had been. And some of Hercules's exploits involved some serious cleverness -- something that JC seemed to lack.

While JC's parents fled to Egypt to avoid King Herod, Hercules strangled Hera's executioner snakes.

With the Nemean Lion, he succeeded where others failed by looking for some alternative to penetrating that beast's impenetrable skin -- he strangled it.

And he cleaned the Augean Stables by digging a ditch to divert some river water into those structures.

lpetrich · 05-15-2003, 01:13 PM

The historicity theory that Toto mentioned is sometimes called "euhemerism", after its inventor Euhemerus (~300 BCE) -- it was a common theory in the Hellenistic world and in the Roman Empire.

Grumpy · 05-15-2003, 02:28 PM

Hercules was the ancestor of Philip of Macedon, I've read. Philip of Macedon existed, therefore Hercules existed. It's so simple.

(Was there ever a Terrance of Macedon?

)

Evangelion · 05-15-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

and he was not big on using magic powers, as JC had been.

Hercules didn't have any supernatural powers. He only possessed phenomenal strength.

Quote:

And some of Hercules's exploits involved some serious cleverness -- something that JC seemed to lack.

JC succeeded in winning debate after debate with the Pharisees, Sadducees, lawyers and scribes, demonstrating on every occasion his superior knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and his ability to avoid rhetorical traps. (This despite the fact that he was a mere carpenter's son from Gallilee.)

"Seemed to lack" cleverness?

I think not.

__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
S�ren Kierkegaard

Secular Pinoy · 05-15-2003, 05:48 PM

Are you referring to the stories in the Gospels? Those narratives which were in all likelihood written (dare I say, invented?) by the Gospel Authors as literary devices to showcase their own theological points?

Evangelion · 05-15-2003, 05:54 PM

You miss the point. The point is "The character of Jesus as portrayed in Christian literature, is indeed both intelligent and clever."

I might just as well say to you "Are you referring to the Greek legends? Those narratives which were in all likelihood written (dare I say, invented?) by the Greeks as literary devices to showcase their own theological points?" But in doing so, I would also be missing the point. Think about it.

And while you're at it, read my signature - from which I believe you will benefit considerably.

__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
S�ren Kierkegaard

05-15-2003, 03:57 AM	#1
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	Tracing the Historical Hercules I'm just curious, is there any kind of concensus in Greco-Roman scholarship on the subject of where the myths of demigods like Herc and Perseus came from? Where they based on real warriors whose exploits became wildly exaggerrated, made up from whole cloth, ... ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2003, 06:36 AM	#2
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	No, they were all borrowed from pre-existing mythological traditions. The Greeks had absolutely no original ideas whatsoever; they simply purloined their religion from the Egptians, Sumerians, Estruscans, Mesopotamians, Chaldeans, Persians and Babylonians. Also, aliens were involved.

05-15-2003, 11:15 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Oh - and there's this.

05-15-2003, 12:39 PM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I'm not sure where that carrying-a-cross bit came from. But to me, Hercules has some things over Jesus Christ -- in some ways, he was more of an achiever -- and he was not big on using magic powers, as JC had been. And some of Hercules's exploits involved some serious cleverness -- something that JC seemed to lack. While JC's parents fled to Egypt to avoid King Herod, Hercules strangled Hera's executioner snakes. With the Nemean Lion, he succeeded where others failed by looking for some alternative to penetrating that beast's impenetrable skin -- he strangled it. And he cleaned the Augean Stables by digging a ditch to divert some river water into those structures.

05-15-2003, 01:13 PM	#6
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The historicity theory that Toto mentioned is sometimes called "euhemerism", after its inventor Euhemerus (~300 BCE) -- it was a common theory in the Hellenistic world and in the Roman Empire.

05-15-2003, 02:28 PM	#7
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Hercules was the ancestor of Philip of Macedon, I've read. Philip of Macedon existed, therefore Hercules existed. It's so simple. (Was there ever a Terrance of Macedon? )

05-15-2003, 05:48 PM	#9
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Are you referring to the stories in the Gospels? Those narratives which were in all likelihood written (dare I say, invented?) by the Gospel Authors as literary devices to showcase their own theological points?

05-15-2003, 05:54 PM	#10
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	You miss the point. The point is "The character of Jesus as portrayed in Christian literature, is indeed both intelligent and clever." I might just as well say to you "Are you referring to the Greek legends? Those narratives which were in all likelihood written (dare I say, invented?) by the Greeks as literary devices to showcase their own theological points?" But in doing so, I would also be missing the point. Think about it. And while you're at it, read my signature - from which I believe you will benefit considerably. __________________ People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use. S�ren Kierkegaard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.