aa5874

Well, then can you explain why Homer's Achilles is regarded as mythology by historians?

Think about it.

mountainman

Dear TaylorC,

Well done. You have. The many other things include:

* who was the author of the book
* which century was the century of original authorship
* where was book written
* whether it was commissioned and/or sponsored, etc
* who preserved it by copying, when and where, etc


Take the New Testament for example.

* nobody knows who was the author of the NT
* nobody knows in which century the NT was originally authored
* nobody knows where the NT was written
* nobody knows if it was commissioned
* nobody knows who transmitted it to Eusebius. (Does Eusebius tell us anything about the physical transmission history of his "archives" aside that they once were assembled by Pamphilus?)


Few trust the Historia Augusta either ...

Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

Certainly. That is a logical and possible alternative. But civilised people have preferred not to pretend that we do not know anything about him, when a text which tells us about him has been preserved.

Burning the books is always an option, if not one that I can recommend.

I imagine that people suppose that ancient history consists of multiple layers of evidence for everything. In reality much of it rests on a single source. That's the data we have.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Heh. Of course if we know "many other things, historical context" that is data too, and we should include it. Then we no longer have a single source. (My example intentionally presumed that we only knew when it was written, and hadn't any other data).

But I noted this: "What if there are bold claims in the work that contradict known science and human capabilities". Friend... is this different from asking what if there are bold claims which we find uncomfortable? It is, to some degree, but for atheists, not nearly enough. These sorts of ideas tend to merely mean "I am going to ignore stuff which I don't like." This won't do, will it?

In other words: I ask the question back. What if we find mention of something odd? How -- without imposing a prejudice or accepting nonsense -- do we rationally evaluate it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I think you are both right. We provisionally accept the report (if it is indeed all we have, with absolutely no evidence to the contrary), making all due qualifications as we do so, and we do not build entire historical superstructures on it. Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources, page 69:

Typically, historians do not rely on just one source to study an event or a historical process, but on many, and they construct their own interpretations about the past by means of comparison among sources—by sifting information contained in many sources, by listening to many voices.

Ibidem, page 81:

But historians never have just what they want or need. At one extreme is the historian limited to one source. Einhard's Life of Charlemagne is, for example, the only source scholars have about the private life of Europe's first emperor. Like many of the political biographies written today, this one is more hagiography than critical biography, and in the best of worlds historians might well refuse to use it as evidence about Charlemagne's life and his character. But historians, although conscious that they are prisoners of the unique source and bear all the risks that this involves, use it because it is all they have.

Ben.

TaylorC

Even uncomfortable and odd things of history are not that far removed from what we know of reality. Sometimes I can hardly believe that fascists in the 1940s managed to kill 6 million Jews, but not only is there a good degree of evidence confirming this, it does not violate any apparently fixed "rules" of nature. With the bible, on the other hand, we have tales that are not just uncomfortable and odd, but that stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of science, history, and reality. The idea that a man lived in the first century, preached salvation, and was crucified is not uncomfortable to me, nor is it that odd in the context of the time. But what is so striking are the claims that he performed miracles of healing the sick, curing the blind, casting out demons, and he returned to life after his crucifixion, to be witnessed by over 500 people, and of those 500 we only have about two alleged, but highly disputed accounts.

Then to realize that there are similar miraculous claims in the rest of the compilation of stories that this is contained in -- that makes it all the more extraordinary. We don't ever see people rising from the dead these days, or parting large bodies of water, and we don't see angels or demons either, yet we have found many of these elements in other known mythologies of the ancient world. I find it remarkable that so many Christians (I don't know if you are one) try to play it off that non-believers just reject or doubt the scriptures because they seem too odd or they make us feel uncomfortable. I just don't know how to respond to that other than saying it's really not something I've ever felt. Uncomfortable and odd things still have a probable chance of being true, but those things that contradict known science and history just don't have much of a chance.

Roger Pearse

This is really a separate subject. I'm not that interested in addressing non-historical issues here, but I will risk a comment on the point you make.

I agree that we (I as well as you) instinctively feel uncomfortable with elements in the NT which involve miraculous events. But may I suggest that our discomfort is not because of a rational feeling? Surely it is rather because we are human animals, we share the presumptions of our own anglophone culture in the early 21st century, and this goes against them. (A Latin American might well feel rather different) We can reinforce these assumptions by the company we keep (or not). But of course different cultures in our own time think differently. The presumptions of our time are an artefact. We're all familiar with the creation and manipulation of public opinion. I remember several now unquestioned assumptions being manufactured, and we are all aware of how people are currently campaigning to make us cringe reflexively at the idea of criticising Islam. So... on a matter of real importance, can we trust this "norm"?

I don't think so, myself. But whether we can or not, we can't just dismiss things because of this. We need to evaluate them rationally, and make our prejudices explicit.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13

Not difficult to manage given that what it is an alternative to is clearly a logically flawed false dichotomy.

Acknowledging the inherent reliability issues of claims based on a single source is not the same as pretending "we do not know anything".

I certainly agree that it is just as much an error to "accept" a single source as reliable simply because it is all we have just as it is to "reject" it as unreliable for the same reason.

Straw man.

I would think that is only true for the most reliable claims about ancient history.

And we shouldn't pretend to have more confidence in claims based upon a single source than is warranted.

Amaleq13

I didn't get the impression from Roger's "Accept or reject?" dichotomy that the claims would be offered with "due qualifications" but, if that is the case, I agree.

gentleexit

and the key part is prejudices explicit. There is always world-view. But what makes you "serious" or "scholarly" I think is the extent of your prejudice - how big is your shopping list.

Take miracles. Clearly acceptable in "histories" back 20 centuries or so, in Tacitus or John. Now do you do as Jefferson recommended - treat them equally, either dismissing both or accepting both - or do you privilege one and dismiss another? Do the latter and you carry more baggage and must be more advocate than historian.

Yes, it is an art. It is story telling - not just assembling an encyclopedia of leftovers. But you are splitting hairs - all story telling means selecting. Which gets back to prejudice. How much baggage is carried - this marks history from polemic or apology. The line is fuzzy but I think most Christian "History" is apology.