Riverwind

In my opinion, "good scholars" would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You speak as if the whole of the passages must be thrown out because of some obvious contamination, but this is just not necessary. It is, however, quite convenient for those who want to reject any historicity to the passages.

If some scholars had ignored Homer's works and labeled them pure fiction, Troy would never have been found. We are lucky that some are not so stupid as to simply dismiss things because they are inconvenient to their own theories.

Malachi151

I have argued that if the passage is entirely authentic then it is even less credible then if it is only partly authentic and has been corrupted. I think that others agree on this, on both sides of the issue, and this is why so many propose that it has been altered by Christians, in an attempt to try and save the validity of the passage.

See my argument here if you wish:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#10

spin

Sorry, yes, I got your point. I just thought I'd drop the poll in here, partly because we've been bombarded by HJ v MJ, when neither seems to be quite so popular here.


spin

spin

They are of course "good scholars" by merit of your opinion.

The problem I posed was one of epistemology. That's what you need to deal with, not cliches.

It is only convenient to grasp at straws when drowning. If you want to have a serious debate over the veracity of the material, I'll happily engage. You simply haven't been around long enough to know that the subject has been raked over frequently and in depth. My view is not a cursory one. And I am yet to see any "good scholar" face the epistemology of the issue.

This gets a doh! for lack of knowledge on the issue. Is the place that Schleimann dug the guts out of anything to do with Troy. The location certainly wasn't his first choice. Priam's "treasure" is a confidence trickster's montage. We'll never know what Schliemann found. But there is certainly a wooden horse there now. That doesn't in any way turn the Iliad into anything historical. Literary sources are dangerous when there is no way of supporting the content.


spin

Ben C Smith

And yet they were.

That was indeed one of your hypotheses.

Ben.

spin

If it is only you saying this, then they probably weren't.

Which bits did you disagree with again? :angel:


spin

Toto

Guys - if you want me to split this off so you can restate your prior arguments on Josephus, I will. Otherwise, please stick to the topic - EMPTY TOMB OF HEROD DISCOVERED. (WHERE IS THE BODY?)

Gamera

The discovery provides fuller historical context for the Gospels and again suggests that the authors saw themselves as writing biography in a known historical context.

The more context of the Christian Scriptures is shown to be historical, the likelier it is that the central characters themselves were historical.

Cege

It seems to me that the lack of bones and inscriptions will continue the controversy about the burial place of Herod for some time to come.

EthnAlln

Yes indeed, just as the recent discovery of a site known as "Fort Knox" and a large deposit of gold there confirms what was previously thought to be a mere legend of an attack on this place by Auric Goldfinger, thwarted through the excellent wit (and other organs) of the brilliant agent James Bond.