Sauron

Nothing? Are you admitting that you have not way to separate out the "core" of an oral tradition, from the rest of the material it contains?

No it doesn't. Just because you view history as a binary event does not mean that the rest of us are stupid enough to fall into the trap of this false dilemma. You, like Roger Pearse and the rest of the bible believing crowd, would dearly like to divide history into:

(a) fact
(b) myth

The flaw in your reasoning has been explained before. But let's hear it again, for old time's sake: there is a whole spectrum of possibilities between these two extremes. We use a gradient of confidence to assess historical claims, based upon the quality of evidence.

And if you recall, I asked you for the bright line that divides the "core" of an oral tradition from the rest of it. Now do you have an answer?

Here's an oral tradition for you, Chris: the Salish have an oral tradition that says that the white markings on the Orca were made when the Great Thunderbird punished Orca for stealing too many salmon. The Thunderbird warned Orca three times not to be greedy, but to share with the Salish people who depended upon the salmon. Orca disobeyed and kept eating all the salmon. So Great Thunderbird put Orca it at the top of Mt Rainier, forcing Orca to slide all the way down the snowy, icy peak in order to return to his home in the Salish Sea. Great Thunderbird knew this would give Orca time to think about his behavior and to understand the punishment for being greedy with food. The ice and snow were so cold that it changed the bottom color of Orca from black into white.



Alrighty Chris, let's see you in action:

1. Which parts of this are core? How do you know?
2. Which are not? How do you know?
3. Do we accept the core as historical?

Perhaps if I had such a recording device, I could lend it to you. That way, you could re-play the bold text above, until it finally sinks in.

Back on track: what metric do you use to extract the core from the surrounding material in an oral tradition? My guess is that you don't have an answer - which is why you tossed out a non-sequitir as a distraction. Hardly original.

Sauron

Ah, Roger. Standing on the sidelines, tossing grenades, but never quite enough courage to support your points. What a lovely private little tea party you must have with yourself.

The problems with your position are well-known.

1. Human memory is fallible - especially after so long - most people cannot remember details, only one or two broad generalities;

2. We're talking about someone of an advanced age here (as would be the case with anyone writing an eyewitness account a century after it happened). The problems related to age, dementia, and memory loss are well-documented;

3. Different people will have different recollections of the same events;

4. There's substantial evidence that even a recently occurring event will be mis-remembered by a witness.


It was the poster telling your that your example of the WW1 soldier is not parallel to the discussion of manuscripts and oral traditions at hand. So your attempt to force a binary yes/no answer out of him about your (deliberately) non-tangent example is hardly going to work.

Cheerful Charlie

Rewind and replay:
Did any 109 year old Chritsian visit Jerusalm at age 109 and write a report telling us what really happened there when he was 19 and saw Jesus crucified?

I say it did not happen in case of Jesus so it is an irrelevant rhetorical question.

CC

aa5874

'Yes', WW1 was an historical event, there are witnesses. 'No', Jesus appears to be a supernatural event. There seems to be no earthly witnesses.

And you can read about John Kerry's dilemma in the Swift Boat Attack to find out how reliable information can be without no witnesses. See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...swiftboats.htm

Chris Weimer

Perhaps you would like to review what I actually said, instead of creating this elaborate strawman.


The false dilemma was deduced from your constant ranting about how poor eyewitnesses are and how they are not to be trusted. You didn't mention any other factors to supplement this. Perhaps someone else is too stupid to gauge their arguments and realize when someone is using their own arguments against them.

Wow. This is exactly what people like aa12345 and Toto view history - if it doesn't have solid archaeological backing to make it fact, it's myth. I have no problem with a broad gray area - others, however, do.

So drop the sophistry.

Can I say NO SHIT SHERLOCK!? If you're just now figuring this out, you have a little catching up to do. The problem is that Jesus Mythicists think the whole story is 100% fiction. They have divided up history into what is fact (that which can be confirmed via archaeological testimony, per some people, or in Toto's special pleading case, "better witnesses"), and fiction (apparently mostly religious literature). I've got no problem saying this stuff probably happened. Or probably didn't happen. That's standard historical practice. I cannot count the times I've gone off on someone here for being stupid enough to say things like "proof Jesus existed", as if anyone could prove that anyone existed. It's nonsensical. Do I think Jesus existed? I think the weight of the evidence points in favor of his existence. Does that make it "fact" - fuck no. If it pointed to his non-existence, would that make it myth? Only by using "myth" in a distorted way.

And I've asked you if you have stopped beating your wife. The question is disingenuous - per above, you said that there's a spectrum, and now you're asking for a strict line of demarcation. This is the worst type of sophistry - the dishonest kind.

Oh yes, and linguists can magically take an excerpt out of context and translate it perfectly.

First of all, before anyone can pick out the "history" (which for this, it doesn't even exist, so it's a moot point), it would be good to know who gathered this story, when it was gathered, if this was merely an abridgement of a larger story, or is this an accurate translation, when it first appeared, and if any other tribes have similar notions.

For this story, it's all myth. There is no historical personages at all, it doesn't locate the material in specific time period, it has only supernatural occurances, and it explains why nature is the way it is. The last two points are give it away.

Contrast with the Jesus story - we have real people, like Pilate, with a definite time period. There are no talking animals. And the characters therein do mundane activities, apart from the supernatural. Compare that with legendary stories of saints in the Middle Ages - historical saints (whom have been recorded by eyewitnesses) whose lives have been greatly exaggerated.

Which does the Jesus story have more in common with?

FYI, the internet is a recording device. So are cameras. :huh:

Oh yes, how clever of you. You ask of a metric? Books have been recommended for you. Perhaps you'd like to read a bit on methodology. You can first start with understanding all supernatural bits to be either embellishments, fabrication, metaphors, or recording mistakes. That's a start.

Chris Weimer

Is this guy even keeping up with the discussion? Roger may believe "in" the Bible, but he so far hasn't even been advocating such. And such a statement leveled at me is absurd. What the fuck?

John isn't anonymous. It may be pseudonymous, but that's different. And besides, two of them are based on Mark, plus we have extra-canonical gospels, Paul, and a tradition, and finally attestation by pagans. And I beg of you to show which gospels were "lying".

Over and over again I see it confirmed. Don't believe that Jesus may have been an historical figure because of bias against Christianity.

Chris Weimer

Yes. Anyone who thinks that the gospels are "lies" are sorely mistaken about how the ancient world works.

I couldn't have put it better. Except perhaps to include tradition and the extra-canonical gospels in there as well.

False dilemma. Nor would I even wonder why you'd be asking me that question, as for fuck's sake I'm an atheist.

Roger Pearse

The 'quote' of my post was reedited to include material that I had snipped. I have restored what I actually wrote.

I see. You will not address my point, and you changed what I posted to try to evade it.

You will excuse me from reading any more of your posts. <edit>

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Grateful for the comment.:devil1:

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

I've long had aa12345 on ignore. I'm surprised you haven't put him there yet. I still can't believe that other posters buy into his line of thinking, though.