Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 01-06-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

And who do you suppose might have a motive to speak the truth about how religious people got their power?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

They clearly would have an agenda to fabricate how religious people got their power, just as political leaders construct narrative "histories" to legitimate their power.

I have no idea whom you're referring to with that "They," but in any case you didn't answer my question. I asked who would tell the truth, and you're telling me who would lie.

Doug Shaver · 01-06-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Nobody bothers to scrutinize the mss history that makes up the Alexander narrative

Really? Nobody?

How do you know that?

aa5874 · 01-06-2007, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Well, I suspect if you scrutinize the references to Alexander from his enemies you'll find a mss history that is no more reliable and no closer in time to the events than the mss history of those that oppose Christianity, such as Josephus' mention of Jesus, or rabbinical references.

You have no basis for your suspicion, since you have no idea of what you are talking about. Read your own statement below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I haven't investigated the matter, but my recollection is that the mss that refer to Alexander are very young and nowhere as near in time to Alexander as the Christian scriptures are to Jesus.

I would encourage you to do your investigations before you make statements that have no validity.

It is beyond me how you could determine when Alexander's enemies wrote about him.

Clivedurdle · 01-06-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

If a character called Jesus, purported to be a religious leader, appeared in a 1st century play would that redound to his historicity or lack thereof?

Quote:

The story of the Danish Prince "Amleth", who plots revenge on his uncle, the current king, for killing his father, the former king, is an old one (see the legendary Hamlet). Many of the story elements — Hamlet's feigned madness, his mother's hasty marriage to the usurper, the testing of the prince's madness with a young woman, the prince talking to his mother and killing a hidden spy, the prince being sent to England with two retainers and substituting for the letter requesting his execution one requesting theirs — are already here in this medieval tale, recorded by Saxo Grammaticus in his Gesta Danorum around 1200. A reasonably accurate version of Saxo was rendered into French in 1570 by François de Belleforest in his Histoires Tragiques.[7]

Shakespeare's main source, however, is believed to be an earlier play — now lost (and possibly by Thomas Kyd) — known as the Ur-Hamlet. This earlier Hamlet play was in performance by 1589, and seems to have introduced a ghost for the first time into the story.[8] Scholars are unable to assert with any confidence how much Shakespeare took from this play, how much from other contemporary sources (such as Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy), and how much from Belleforest (possibly something) or Saxo (probably nothing). But certainly, Shakespeare's Hamlet has elements that the medieval version does not: the secrecy of the murder, a ghost that urges revenge, the "other sons" Laertes and Fortinbras, the testing of the king via a play, and the mutually fatal nature of Hamlet's (nearly incidental) "revenge".[9][10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet

I'm not clear how an original play can move towards history - plays belong more in the story telling genre,

Gamera · 01-08-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have no basis for your suspicion, since you have no idea of what you are talking about. Read your own statement below.

I would encourage you to do your investigations before you make statements that have no validity.

It is beyond me how you could determine when Alexander's enemies wrote about him.

No, the burdens on you. My recollection is that any mss mentioning Alexander are very young. But you have the burden, so you do the investigating and let us know.

Gamera · 01-08-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PopeInTheWoods

Not circular I think, as you can satirize fictional characters (like Uncle Sam) too, so you can have satire without historical people. But having preacher Jesus appear in a satire around his supposed lifetime would be greater - though not conclusive - evidence for historicity than not having such a work.

I just looked at your original question again and see that it only asked about "1st century", somehow I read that as pertaining to Jesus' lifetime. I think such a work carry greater weight if it were dated at 30CE than at 80CE.

Well but our mss of Aristophanes' plays are much later, as I recall (again, nobody cares much so we don't usually worry about these thing in the context of Socrates).

If you had a play purported by a contempory of Jesus in which Jesus appears as a character satirized, but the mss was 200 years after Jesus' time, wouldn't you take it with a grain of salt.

PopeInTheWoods · 01-08-2007, 07:33 PM

Yes I would. I think I originally answered a different question that you asked or intended, sorry.

spin · 01-08-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No, the burdens on you. My recollection is that any mss mentioning Alexander are very young. But you have the burden, so you do the investigating and let us know.

The texts are more apparently secondary for Alexander than many other historical figures. Let's look rather at the coins. The vast array of Alexander coins from his own time and the brief period after his death are extremely difficult for doubters to overcome in any convincing manner. From the coins we know some characteristics of what he looked like. There are coins from a vast number of locations during the period, which make sense given the literary indications. To deny the existence of Alexander would need more explanation than the effort is worth. The literature has the support of hard archaeological evidence. The coins are only a part of that evidence.

spin

Gamera · 01-09-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The texts are more apparently secondary for Alexander than many other historical figures. Let's look rather at the coins. The vast array of Alexander coins from his own time and the brief period after his death are extremely difficult for doubters to overcome in any convincing manner. From the coins we know some characteristics of what he looked like. There are coins from a vast number of locations during the period, which make sense given the literary indications. To deny the existence of Alexander would need more explanation than the effort is worth. The literature has the support of hard archaeological evidence. The coins are only a part of that evidence.

spin

Evidence certainly, but one wonders how if the numismatics would withstand scrutiny if anybody bothered to scrutinize it the way they do Jesus' historicity. Do the coins say it is Alexander? Does the portrait differ substantially from other "portraits" of great heroes and leaders -- or is it conventional? Are there coins with nonhistorical, obviously fictive characters on it (answer yes, gods and goddess grace many ancient coins)? What is the origin of the coins -- did the designs arise independently or are they variations on a common design, so that really we only have one coin design with Alexander on it.

Unless somebody has carried out this analysis, the coins only support Alexander's historicity if it already assumed (and it is)

spin · 01-09-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Evidence certainly, but one wonders how if the numismatics would withstand scrutiny if anybody bothered to scrutinize it the way they do Jesus' historicity. Do the coins say it is Alexander?

Yup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Does the portrait differ substantially from other "portraits" of great heroes and leaders -- or is it conventional?

Oh, yeah. And surprisingly there is quite a bit of variety within limits of the representation of Alexander.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Are there coins with nonhistorical, obviously fictive characters on it (answer yes, gods and goddess grace many ancient coins)?

They have an Alexander-like Hercules on one side and a reclining Zeus on the other, accompanied by the name Alexander.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What is the origin of the coins -- did the designs arise independently or are they variations on a common design, so that really we only have one coin design with Alexander on it.

The designs that I have seen are basically the same with many variations, such that numismatists can identify the sources of them from various locations around the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Unless somebody has carried out this analysis, the coins only support Alexander's historicity if it already assumed (and it is)

Naaa. The coins have had a great deal of analysis. Hoards of them have been found, like one found in Egypt which had 8000. The coins appear in the archaeological chronology at the right time. There are of course coins for Philip II, his father, which have been given great use as primary historical material for understanding the reign of Philip, which didn't leave us the lavish records of that of Alexander. Naturally I should include the coins of his half-brother Philip Arrhidaeus who succeeded him. These are usually similar to those of Alexander, but marked with Philip's name.

You are trying to hard.

spin

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

01-08-2007, 07:33 PM	#77
PopeInTheWoods Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Rochester NY USA Posts: 4,318	Yes I would. I think I originally answered a different question that you asked or intended, sorry.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.