Freethought & Rationalism Archive

vijeno · 11-12-2008, 08:06 AM

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

If you have any that come from or you consider a myth that gets confused for history let me know. I think if there was an accurate example of what the mythers are suggesting happened with Jesus it would be used ad nauseam around here, but I'm always prepared to be schooled.

Abraham, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses....

The idea that any of these were historical is preposterous, yet the ancients (and even a lot of moderns) believed them to be.

I have often wondered about that - do we actually KNOW that "the ancients" thought the stories of the bible to be historically true? (let's be more precise and only talk about the Israelites of around the time of Jesus, for starters.) Or was it rather that they simply didn't distinguish between myth and history in the way that we do?

Chili · 11-12-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijeno

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Abraham, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses....

The idea that any of these were historical is preposterous, yet the ancients (and even a lot of moderns) believed them to be.

I have often wondered about that - do we actually KNOW that "the ancients" thought the stories of the bible to be historically true? (let's be more precise and only talk about the Israelites of around the time of Jesus, for starters.) Or was it rather that they simply didn't distinguish between myth and history in the way that we do?

They did not live in a nuclear society and were able to contemplate their own destiny much better than we can today (we actually replaced such tithing with giving money instead). They all knew that their ancients were allegories and actually buried their own remains to make history (live in the present) that we now look for to make history known.

aa5874 · 11-12-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijeno

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Abraham, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses....

The idea that any of these were historical is preposterous, yet the ancients (and even a lot of moderns) believed them to be.

I have often wondered about that - do we actually KNOW that "the ancients" thought the stories of the bible to be historically true? (let's be more precise and only talk about the Israelites of around the time of Jesus, for starters.) Or was it rather that they simply didn't distinguish between myth and history in the way that we do?

If you read the writings of the church writers like Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr or Josephus, Philo and others, you will be able s what they wrote about the beliefs of aniquity.

vijeno · 11-12-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If you read the writings of the church writers like Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr or Josephus, Philo and others, you will be able s what they wrote about the beliefs of aniquity.

What do YOU think they wrote?

Clivedurdle · 11-12-2008, 02:39 PM

Around 1800, Humphrey Davy was discussing a rock formation at Littlehampton - what caused it - sea erosion or was it a ruined giant's castle.

It is easy to forget that rationally looking at something is a very modern idea, superstition is still extremely rife around the planet.

So yes, a very few people had a reasonably modern understanding - like archimedes - but the vast majority did not.

andrewcriddle · 11-12-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vijeno

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Abraham, Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses....

The idea that any of these were historical is preposterous, yet the ancients (and even a lot of moderns) believed them to be.

I have often wondered about that - do we actually KNOW that "the ancients" thought the stories of the bible to be historically true? (let's be more precise and only talk about the Israelites of around the time of Jesus, for starters.) Or was it rather that they simply didn't distinguish between myth and history in the way that we do?

There is no doubt that the ancients regarded Moses and the Patriarchs as historical (and argued about such things as how much earlier Moses was than the Trojan war.)

The very early chapters of Genesis were regarded by some of the ancients as mythical in our sense. eg Origen probably did not believe in a historical Adam although he did believe in a historical Noah.

Andrew Criddle

No Robots · 11-12-2008, 03:25 PM

In most Jewish households, for instance, then as now, the stories of Esther and Daniel, whether told in Hebrew or the language current in everyday intercourse, are likely to have beeen thought (at best) as belonging to a twilight world between imaginative fiction, holy writ, and historical truth. Conversely, some Hellenised Jews will have approached many parts of the canonical scriptures with unconcern or scepticism regarding their historicity. As Wills is well aware, a similar kind of ambivalence may be thought to attach to the way that parts of the Christian Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were presented: despite their novelistic features, and even though Gospel truth may not be the same thing as historical truth, the latter were clearly not intended to strike the reader as fictitious.--Armand D'Angour / Review of The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World by Lawrence M. Wills.

Clivedurdle · 11-12-2008, 11:43 PM

But our distinction of historical mythical is also modern - the belief systems until very recently were god sitting above the vault of heaven, a small young unchanging universe, within which certain actors strutted upon their stage. It is not a problem for virgins to give birth with the holy spirit as a dad, nor for gods to resurrect. These are still considered historical facts by huge numbers of people.

If the whole superstructure contains mythical elements, and miracles and demons and angels are continually interacting with humans, you have to start with the reality of a demon haunted world and make judgments about history within that.

Was St Christopher a dogman?

vijeno · 11-13-2008, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

(and argued about such things as how much earlier Moses was than the Trojan war.)

That is a very good point, thanks. Could you point me to an example?

Toto · 11-13-2008, 01:23 AM

Somewhere in this thread there was a discussion of ancient standards of history, I referenced this paper: Acts of Impropriety: The Imbalance of History and Theology in Luke-Acts by Gerd Lüdemann. At p. 73 and following, Ludemann discusses the standards of history in the ancient world:

Quote:

A number of Greek and Roman historians engaged in an ongoing discourse about historical truth, including the issues of intellectual deception and falsification. Moreover, those of the Greek and Roman intelligentsia, though lacking the sophistication of modern critics, had developed clear criteria by which to uncover fraud. . .

[snip extended discussion of concrete examples]

When compared to the literary meticulousness of the Greco-Roman world, Hebrew literature shows a lack of concern in such matters as awareness of intellectual property, commitment to historical truth and sense of authorial individuality. In fact, the literature of what later became the Old Testament was for the most part tradition-literature rather than author-literature. Even the books of the prophets were constantly reworked by their disciples and by later theological schools. And not only is the same true for the panoramic history that stretches from 1 Samuel to 2 Kings, but the Chronicler’s account is ultimately a further commentary on those narratives, for he is engaged in the same task as that of his prophetic and historical predecessors: rewriting earlier proclamations or accounts to suit the needs of the present generation. To be sure, it sometimes appears that when the reworking of earlier accounts produced contradictions too obvious to overlook, the author-redactor felt obliged to observe some elementary literary scruples.

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

11-12-2008, 02:39 PM	#5
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Around 1800, Humphrey Davy was discussing a rock formation at Littlehampton - what caused it - sea erosion or was it a ruined giant's castle. It is easy to forget that rationally looking at something is a very modern idea, superstition is still extremely rife around the planet. So yes, a very few people had a reasonably modern understanding - like archimedes - but the vast majority did not.

11-12-2008, 03:25 PM	#7
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	In most Jewish households, for instance, then as now, the stories of Esther and Daniel, whether told in Hebrew or the language current in everyday intercourse, are likely to have beeen thought (at best) as belonging to a twilight world between imaginative fiction, holy writ, and historical truth. Conversely, some Hellenised Jews will have approached many parts of the canonical scriptures with unconcern or scepticism regarding their historicity. As Wills is well aware, a similar kind of ambivalence may be thought to attach to the way that parts of the Christian Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles were presented: despite their novelistic features, and even though Gospel truth may not be the same thing as historical truth, the latter were clearly not intended to strike the reader as fictitious.--Armand D'Angour / Review of The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World by Lawrence M. Wills.

11-12-2008, 11:43 PM	#8
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But our distinction of historical mythical is also modern - the belief systems until very recently were god sitting above the vault of heaven, a small young unchanging universe, within which certain actors strutted upon their stage. It is not a problem for virgins to give birth with the holy spirit as a dad, nor for gods to resurrect. These are still considered historical facts by huge numbers of people. If the whole superstructure contains mythical elements, and miracles and demons and angels are continually interacting with humans, you have to start with the reality of a demon haunted world and make judgments about history within that. Was St Christopher a dogman?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.