avi

So, Andrew, if we consider, for example, Aristotle, as a guy who devoted his life to a rational explanation for phenomena, the man credited as founding the science of biology, would he have viewed these four gospels as anything but complete and utter fiction, replete with demons, ghosts, healing by spittle, birth absent oocyte fertilization, walking on water, and healing epilepsy by waving one's hands about like the conductor of a symphony? (I am certain that you know, Andrew, of Aristotle's famous textbook of medicine, which Avicenna, 1300 years later, was said to have memorized....)

Do you possess a document from any one of the famous ancient Greek philosophers, artists, scientists, politicians, teachers, mathematicians, or other educated persons, which outlines their personal beliefs, and defines those texts which influenced their beliefs, so that we may confirm their predisposition to consider works which we regard as fiction, as in fact, historical?

avi

aa5874

I really don't understand why people here don't just read Suetonius' "Life of the Twelve Caesars" to understand what educated people believed in antiquity.

It is clear that people of antiquity, regardless of education in the Roman Empire, did believe in Myth Gods and Godesses.

Even the Emperors of Rome sacrificed to Myth Gods.

It was the very Greeks and Romans that believed that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

Vespasian did believe that the myth Serapis WAS indeed a God who gave him the ability to heal the blind with spit. See "Life of Vespasian.

andrewcriddle

I'm surprised no-one picked this up.

I badly misremembered.

It was of course Kronos who castrated his Father Ouranos. Zeus cast his Father Kronos into Tartarus. (What a nice family.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The Introduction to the Golden Ass would I think make clear to the reader that it is a piece of fiction with a message rather than a true account.

(Also I think that a first person narrative of ones experiences after being turned into a donkey would not have been taken literally in the Ancient World.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Aristotle was more of a rationalist (in the modern sense) than were most intellectuals of the Roman Empire period. The Neo-Platonists for example were by our standards rather credulous. (This is not really true of Plotinus but is true of most of the rest.)

Andrew Criddle

beallen041

But a man walking on water would have been taken as sober history?

beallen041

In addition, Apuleius in the Latin introduction was using the word fabula. This is transliterated as "fable" in the translation you link to, but had a broader meaning in Latin which included even historical stories, such as the Octavia which was known as a "fabula praetexta."

davidstarlingm

Oh, I think all the conservative Christians out there believe Job 37:18 implicitly. It asserts that Elihu said the sky was as hard as a cast metal mirror. He probably believed it, too.

I agree -- that's a good rule of thumb for evaluating any text. Of course, the ability to do so depends greatly on our knowledge of the perspective of the authors (and how much of it can be determined from context).

When we start by assuming the "absolute ignorance" of anyone who disagrees with us, our opportunity to learn anything at all is sorely stunted.

ApostateAbe

I really do think that would be the best way to interpret the passage literally and believe it at the same time. The passage is just a quote of some guy talking, and this guy is not even supposed to be speaking the infallible Word of God, so he has permission to make plenty of errors. It is only a problem for those who use such passages in the Bible to attempt to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible. It may seem bizarre, but I have seen very many Christians cite that very same passage (Job 37:18) to prove that the Bible predicted an expanding universe ("...spread out the skies...").
Absolutely.

davidstarlingm

I should hope that no one would use Job 37:18 (or anything from the first 7/8ths of Job) to make any kinds of arguments about what the Bible teaches. After all, God tells Job to pray that his friends might be forgiven for all of their errors at the end....kind of self-refuting.

I have, however, heard plenty of people use the Psalms, Jeremiah, and Isaiah to make the claim that the Bible taught an expanding universe. Psalm 104:2, Jeremiah 10:12, and Isaiah 42:5 are a few examples.

Job does, however, offer a very interesting look at the scientific beliefs of Ancient Near Eastern people. This story can be traced back quite far; I always find it helpful when a new source of information about ancient culture is brought to light.

I think it's quite obnoxious when people claim that the Bible indisputably teaches a particular cosmological model (heliocentrism or, horror, general relativity). If it did, the 17th century Catholics wouldn't have used it to bolster their classically-derived assertions about geocentrism.

I do, however, find it interesting that the Bible, for all its commentary on the natural world, never seriously advances any of the cosmological models of its era. It is one of the few exhaustive ancient works that makes very few falsifiable assertions about cosmology.