Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 12-01-2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If you are unsure of what I mean by "historical identity"
the schematic at post # 298 above may clarify.
N/A

If the documents you are referring to when you talk about 'the Bilbo epistles' are the ones I assume you mean, then their author was JRR Tolkien, as I would guess you are well aware. Historically, JRR Tolkien was a real person (that is, before he died). I don't know whether you would say JRR Tolkien was 'an authentic historical identity', as it's not sufficiently clear what you mean by that expression.

That's what I mean ... JRR Tolkien "was a real person". A series of other independent corroborative evidence also strongly supports that this is the name of a real person. Our working postulate is that JRR Tolkien was a real person.

I would not call it a 'postulate' because I did not arrive at it by postulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I can easily frame the question 'Does my brother have a moustache?' The words are all familiar English words and they're arranged in a simple English sentence structure. I can then go on to frame two possible answers to that question, as follows:
(1) My brother has a moustache
(2) My brother does not have a moustache

Taking your approach, you might want to say that only one of those hypotheses can be correct.

How might we find out which one of them is correct? Could we look at my brother? Could we look at photographs of my brother? Could we ask people who have known my brother?

No, we can't do any of those things, because I don't have a brother (and never have had). Because I do not have a brother, the question is not about anybody. The grammatical construction makes it look as if the question is about 'my brother', but since I have no brother, for the purposes of any empirical enquiry (and history is an empirical subject) the question is not about anybody.

So that's the problem with your approach. Any statement of a historical question, a historical hypothesis, or a historical topic, must be have a subject, and it has to be a subject whose actual existence is, if not an absolute certainty, something which is taken to be established for the purposes of the enquiry.

Hence my insistance that one of the more foundational hypotheses for an investigator is the question of historical existence - in the above case of the person described as "brother" in your statement.

But a hypothesis is not a question. 'Do you have a brother?' is a question. 'You have a brother' is a hypothesis. There is no point in any investigation asking questions about your brother except on the hypothesis that you have a brother.

On the other hand, I can also easily frame the question 'What is the height of my sister?' The words are all familiar English words and they're arranged in a simple English sentence structure. It would be possible to go on and frame several different possible answers to this question, giving different figures (in inches, or in centimetres, or whatever unit of measure you prefer), and to suggest that since those different answers contradict each other only one of them can be true. But that would be a mistake, because I have three different sisters, all of different heights. The expression 'my sister' turns out not to be a sufficiently definite description. No investigation of the question 'What is the height of my sister?' can go anywhere until it's been established which of my sisters is being referred to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Historians who agree that there was once a river which matched the descriptions in the Vedas can have a meaningful discussion about when it stopped flowing, why, what the consequences were, and so on. For historians who hold there never was such a river, those specific questions are meaningless.

It may therefore be clearly seen that some historians are running with a working hypothesis that there once existed an historical Sarasvati river, whereas other historians are running with the antithetical hypothesis that there was not, and the river is ahistorical.

That's fair enough, up to the last clause, which is potentially misleading.

Consider these three statements:
'The Sarasvati river is wide'
'The Sarasvati river is shallow'
'The Sarasvati river is ahistorical'

On the surface, their grammatical structure is similar. They look like parallel kinds of statement. But 'a wide river', 'a shallow river', and 'an ahistorical river' are not just three parallel descriptions for three possible kinds of river. 'An ahistorical river' is not a kind of river in the same way that 'a wide river' and 'a shallow river' are. Discussion of whether the Sarasvati river was wide is possible on the basis of an understanding that there was a Sarasvati river (and only on that basis), and the same is true of a discussion of whether the Sarasvati river was shallow. But discussion of whether the Sarasvati river was ahistorical is impossible on the basis of an understanding that there was a Sarasvati river: if there was a Sarasvati river, then it couldn't have been ahistorical.

If we say that historians who hold that there never was a Sarasvati river hold that the stories about the Sarasvati river are ahistorical, that doesn't have the same potential for confusion. However, if the question is 'are the stories about the Sarasvati river historical or ahistorical?', there are at least three possible kinds of answer: it could be that the stories are entirely historical, entirely ahistorical, or partly historical and partly ahistorical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

In a similar way, historians who agree that a man once lived who whose life story matched the descriptions given in Acts (specifically, the stories attached there to the name of 'Paul') can meaningfully discuss what part, if any, of the epistles traditionally attributed to 'Paul' he actually wrote. For historians who hold that there never was a man whose life matched those stories, questions about what he might have written are meaningless.

Again it may therefore be clearly seen that some historians are running with a working hypothesis that there once existed an historical "Apostle Paul", whereas other historians are running with the antithetical hypothesis that there was not, and the "Apostle Paul" is ahistorical.

No, that's not correct. The description 'the Apostle Paul' is not nearly as definite as the description I referred to 'a man whose life story matched the descriptions given in Acts using the name "Paul"'. As I pointed out above, it's important for descriptions to be sufficiently definite. We can only meaningfully discuss 'my sister' if we have established clearly enough what we mean, in the context of the discussion, by 'my sister', and we can only meaningfully discuss 'the Apostle Paul' if we have established clearly enough what we mean, in the context of the discussion, by 'the Apostle Paul'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However each set of historians still have to address common sets of questions and explain common sets of evidence by using their respective working hypotheses. The questions do not become meaningless, they are simply treated in a different fashion by each set of investigators according to their respective hypotheses. Some of these questions were already dealt with in your discussion with Doug. Where the hypothesis that Paul was not a real person is selected to be run with, the question must be answered ............... "If "Paul" was ahistorical and did not author the Pauline Letters, then who did?". These are not necessarily meaningless questions because, after all, until the entire investigation is resolved, we still dont know which hypothesis is the correct one.

The question 'who wrote the so-called "Pauline epistles"?' is sufficiently clear to be investigated as it stands. Attaching conditions to it about allegedly ahistorical people only confuses it. I suggest you need to review the issue in the light of what I have said above.

Notice that the description 'having a life story matching the description of "Paul" in Acts' and 'author of the so-called "Pauline epistles"' are not interchangeable. Among the possibilities that might be considered are the possibility that a real person once existed who matched both descriptions, and the possibility that a real person once existed who had the life story but not the authorship, and the possibility that a real person existed who had the authorship but not the life story. Distinguishing between these (and other) possibilities and evaluating them comparatively is not assisted but obstructed by talking about the issues the way you do.

mountainman · 12-02-2011, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

In a similar way, historians who agree that a man once lived who whose life story matched the descriptions given in Acts (specifically, the stories attached there to the name of 'Paul') can meaningfully discuss what part, if any, of the epistles traditionally attributed to 'Paul' he actually wrote. For historians who hold that there never was a man whose life matched those stories, questions about what he might have written are meaningless.

Again it may therefore be clearly seen that some historians are running with a working hypothesis that there once existed an historical "Apostle Paul", whereas other historians are running with the antithetical hypothesis that there was not, and the "Apostle Paul" is ahistorical.

No, that's not correct.

Detering comments: "If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

Quote:

The description 'the Apostle Paul' is not nearly as definite as the description I referred to 'a man whose life story matched the descriptions given in Acts using the name "Paul"'.

The WIKI page for 'the Apostle Paul' will suffice. Detering calls him Paul. This will be sufficient for the moment.

Quote:

... we can only meaningfully discuss 'the Apostle Paul' if we have established clearly enough what we mean, in the context of the discussion, by 'the Apostle Paul'.

See above for the WIKI page, which will suffice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However each set of historians still have to address common sets of questions and explain common sets of evidence by using their respective working hypotheses. The questions do not become meaningless, they are simply treated in a different fashion by each set of investigators according to their respective hypotheses. Some of these questions were already dealt with in your discussion with Doug. Where the hypothesis that Paul was not a real person is selected to be run with, the question must be answered ............... "If "Paul" was ahistorical and did not author the Pauline Letters, then who did?". These are not necessarily meaningless questions because, after all, until the entire investigation is resolved, we still dont know which hypothesis is the correct one.

The question 'who wrote the so-called "Pauline epistles"?' is sufficiently clear to be investigated as it stands. Attaching conditions to it about allegedly ahistorical people only confuses it.

Detering doesn't think so.

"If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

http://www.radikalkritik.de/in_engl.htm

Here Detering refers to the hypotheses of authenticity and inauthenticity of the letters of Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detering THE FALSIFIED PAUL from the Introduction

I would be happy if from now on everyone who appeals to the letters of Paul would at the same time bear in mind that the authenticity of seven Pauline letters in no sense represents an absolutely established historical fact, but — just as the hypothesis of inauthenticity — is only a hypothesis, and indeed, as every scholar who has struggled with the unending difficulties and problems of Pauline studies will confirm, a very complicated hypothesis.

tanya · 12-02-2011, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...if there was a Sarasvati river, then it couldn't have been ahistorical.

I am uncertain whether or not this particular example is correct.

Unfortunately, humans divert rivers, especially in modern times. Consequently, a river can become ahistorical...it can become non-existent.

There is a man made lake in Texas, which this summer dried up, exposing "ghost towns", older, "historical" buildings, cemeteries, roads,--which had been buried under thirty meters of water, until the recent drought.

If there had been a Sarasvati river, once upon a time, then, at that time, it could not have been ahistorical, but, that is not the same as writing that it could not be ahistorical today. How can something, for which no current evidence exists, be regarded as historical, at present?

What do we know about the ancient Sphinx? It was carved from a big rock. Initially, it had the head of a lion, that head was then chiseled anew by an Egyptian king, who modified the lion's head to resemble, instead, his own head. Can we write anything about the ancient religious practices of those who initially carved the lion from the rock? It is difficult to know something about a cult, absent any information. The cult was once "historical". It is today, "ahistorical", because we have no information about it.

J-D · 12-02-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

In a similar way, historians who agree that a man once lived who whose life story matched the descriptions given in Acts (specifically, the stories attached there to the name of 'Paul') can meaningfully discuss what part, if any, of the epistles traditionally attributed to 'Paul' he actually wrote. For historians who hold that there never was a man whose life matched those stories, questions about what he might have written are meaningless.

Again it may therefore be clearly seen that some historians are running with a working hypothesis that there once existed an historical "Apostle Paul", whereas other historians are running with the antithetical hypothesis that there was not, and the "Apostle Paul" is ahistorical.

No, that's not correct.

Detering comments: "If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

Then Detering is talking gibberish. The statement 'These letters were written in the name of a phantom' has no clear meaning (true or false), and therefore the question 'Were these letters written in the name of a phantom?' has no clear meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

The description 'the Apostle Paul' is not nearly as definite as the description I referred to 'a man whose life story matched the descriptions given in Acts using the name "Paul"'.

The WIKI page for 'the Apostle Paul' will suffice. Detering calls him Paul. This will be sufficient for the moment.

No. It won't. You don't make it sufficient to deal with the specific points I have already raised just by insisting that it is sufficient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

... we can only meaningfully discuss 'the Apostle Paul' if we have established clearly enough what we mean, in the context of the discussion, by 'the Apostle Paul'.

See above for the WIKI page, which will suffice.

See above for my response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However each set of historians still have to address common sets of questions and explain common sets of evidence by using their respective working hypotheses. The questions do not become meaningless, they are simply treated in a different fashion by each set of investigators according to their respective hypotheses. Some of these questions were already dealt with in your discussion with Doug. Where the hypothesis that Paul was not a real person is selected to be run with, the question must be answered ............... "If "Paul" was ahistorical and did not author the Pauline Letters, then who did?". These are not necessarily meaningless questions because, after all, until the entire investigation is resolved, we still dont know which hypothesis is the correct one.

The question 'who wrote the so-called "Pauline epistles"?' is sufficiently clear to be investigated as it stands. Attaching conditions to it about allegedly ahistorical people only confuses it.

Detering doesn't think so.

Then Detering is in error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

"If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

http://www.radikalkritik.de/in_engl.htm

Here Detering refers to the hypotheses of authenticity and inauthenticity of the letters of Paul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detering THE FALSIFIED PAUL from the Introduction

I would be happy if from now on everyone who appeals to the letters of Paul would at the same time bear in mind that the authenticity of seven Pauline letters in no sense represents an absolutely established historical fact, but — just as the hypothesis of inauthenticity — is only a hypothesis, and indeed, as every scholar who has struggled with the unending difficulties and problems of Pauline studies will confirm, a very complicated hypothesis.

J-D · 12-02-2011, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...if there was a Sarasvati river, then it couldn't have been ahistorical.

I am uncertain whether or not this particular example is correct.

Unfortunately, humans divert rivers, especially in modern times. Consequently, a river can become ahistorical...it can become non-existent.

There is a man made lake in Texas, which this summer dried up, exposing "ghost towns", older, "historical" buildings, cemeteries, roads,--which had been buried under thirty meters of water, until the recent drought.

If there had been a Sarasvati river, once upon a time, then, at that time, it could not have been ahistorical, but, that is not the same as writing that it could not be ahistorical today. How can something, for which no current evidence exists, be regarded as historical, at present?

What do we know about the ancient Sphinx? It was carved from a big rock. Initially, it had the head of a lion, that head was then chiseled anew by an Egyptian king, who modified the lion's head to resemble, instead, his own head. Can we write anything about the ancient religious practices of those who initially carved the lion from the rock? It is difficult to know something about a cult, absent any information. The cult was once "historical". It is today, "ahistorical", because we have no information about it.

It depends on what you mean by 'ahistorical'. Personally I think the term is more clearly used if it is restricted to use as a description for accounts, reports, stories, or the like. I understand clearly what is meant by 'an ahistorical account' or 'an ahistorical report'; I am less clear about 'an ahistorical river'. It doesn't make sense (I don't just mean it isn't true, I mean it doesn't make sense) to say both 'there is now a wide Sarasvati river' and 'there is now no Sarasvati river', so how can it make sense to say 'there is now an ahistorical Sarasvati river' and 'there is now no Sarasvati river'. To describe something as 'historical' normally means that it did exist in the past, so what can it possibly mean to say that it is not historical (which must be what 'ahistorical' means) now because it does not exist now? It seems to me that the possibilities are more clearly stated (avoiding the word 'ahistorical' altogether) in the forms: (1) there is not now a Sarasvati river but there was once; (2) there never was a Sarasvati river.

mountainman · 12-02-2011, 11:31 AM

Sarasvati River

Quote:

Historical Identification

The Sarasvati River of late Vedic and post-Vedic times is generally identified with the Ghaggar River. But the implication of a river of substantially greater volume makes the same identification of the early Vedic references problematic: either the Ghaggar was a more powerful river in earlier times, or the early Vedic Sarasvati was located elsewhere[citation needed].

Ghaggar-Hakra River

Evidence from survey fieldwork and recent satellite imagery have been adduced to suggest that the Ghaggar-Hakra system in the undetermined past had the Sutlej and the Yamuna as tributaries, with the Rann of Kutch as the likely remains of its delta. In this scenario, geological changes diverted the Sutlej towards the Indus and the Yamuna towards the Ganges, following which the river did not have enough water to reach the sea any more and dried up in the Thar desert. It has been proposed that the Sarasvati of the early Rigveda corresponds to the Ghaggar-Hakra before these changes took place (the "Old Ghaggar"), and the late Vedic end Epic Sarasvati disappearing in the desert to the Ghaggar-Hakra following the diversion of Sutlej and Yamuna.

The wide river bed (paleo-channel) of the Ghaggar river suggest that the river once flowed full of water during the great meltdown of the Himalayan Ice Age glaciers, some 10,000 years ago, and that it then continued through the entire region, in the presently dry channel of the Hakra River, possibly emptying into the Rann of Kutch. It supposedly dried up due to the capture of its tributaries by the Indus system and the Yamuna river, and later on, additionally, the loss of water in much of its catchment area due to deforestation and overgrazing.[23] This is supposed by some to have happened at the latest in 1900 BCE [24][25]

Painted Grey Ware sites (ca. 1000 BCE) have been found in the bed and not on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, suggesting that the river had dried up before this period.[26]

Helmand river

Suggestions for the identity of the early Rigvedic Sarasvati River include the Helmand River in Afghanistan, separated from the watershed of the Indus by the Sanglakh Range. The Helmand historically besides Avestan Haetumant bore the name Haraxvaiti, which is the Avestan form cognate to Sanskrit Sarasvati. The Avesta extols the Helmand in similar terms to those used in the Rigveda with respect to the Sarasvati: "the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood".[27]

Kocchar (1999) argues that the Helmand is identical to the early Rigvedic Sarasvati of suktas 2.41, 7.36 etc., and that the Nadistuti sukta (10.75) was composed centuries later, after an eastward migration of the bearers of the Rigvedic culture to the western Gangetic plain some 600 km to the east. The Sarasvati by this time had become a mythical "disappeared" river, and the name was transferred to the Ghaggar which disappeared in the desert.

The identification of the Helmand with the early Rig Vedic Sarasvati is not without difficulties. However, the geographic situation of the Sarasvati and the Helmand rivers are similar. Both flow into a terminal lakes: the Helmand into a swamp in the Iranian plateau (the extended wetland and lake system of Hamun-i-Helmand). This matches the Rigvedic description of the Sarasvati flowing to the samudra, which at that time meant 'confluence', 'lake', 'heavenly lake, ocean'; the current meaning of 'terrestrial ocean' was not even felt in the Pali Canon.[28] In post-Rig Vedic texts (Brahmanas) the Sarasvati ("she who has (many) lakes"), is said to disappear ("dive under") in the desert.

This represents a case where a river once hypothecised to be non-existent, "mythical" or "ahistorical" (not historical) - basically because there was no visible evidence of its existence in recent times - as a result of further evidence, is now hypothecized to have existed.

The historical existence of something - a person, or a river or the historical basis of events in a story in a manuscript - is always best represented in the hypothetical form. To paraphrase Detering in the quote above, in ancient history there are no absolutely established historical facts, but rather in their place, hypotheses for authenticity and hypotheses for inauthenticity.

mountainman · 12-02-2011, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Detering comments: "If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

Then Detering is talking gibberish. The statement 'These letters were written in the name of a phantom' has no clear meaning (true or false), and therefore the question 'Were these letters written in the name of a phantom?' has no clear meaning.

aa5874 has a clear meaning for a phantom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

..... Detering is in error.

I am sorry to have to disagree with you here.

J-D · 12-02-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Detering comments: "If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?"

Then Detering is talking gibberish. The statement 'These letters were written in the name of a phantom' has no clear meaning (true or false), and therefore the question 'Were these letters written in the name of a phantom?' has no clear meaning.

aa5874 has a clear meaning for a phantom.

That seems unlikely. I don't recall aa5874 ever having a clear meaning for anything. But in any case what is at issue is not whether there is a clear meaning for the single word 'phantom'--there are several. What is at issue is whether there is a clear meaning for the whole sentence and, as I have pointed out before, it is entirely possible to take ordinary English words and put them together in an apparently grammatical structure and yet produce a sentence which has no clear meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

..... Detering is in error.

I am sorry to have to disagree with you here.

I don't know why you say you're sorry. Before now you've always seemed happy to disagree with me, although you've never been able to give a good reason for doing so.

J-D · 12-02-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati_River#Identification"]Sarasvati River[/url]

Quote:

Historical Identification

The Sarasvati River of late Vedic and post-Vedic times is generally identified with the Ghaggar River. But the implication of a river of substantially greater volume makes the same identification of the early Vedic references problematic: either the Ghaggar was a more powerful river in earlier times, or the early Vedic Sarasvati was located elsewhere[citation needed].

Ghaggar-Hakra River

Evidence from survey fieldwork and recent satellite imagery have been adduced to suggest that the Ghaggar-Hakra system in the undetermined past had the Sutlej and the Yamuna as tributaries, with the Rann of Kutch as the likely remains of its delta. In this scenario, geological changes diverted the Sutlej towards the Indus and the Yamuna towards the Ganges, following which the river did not have enough water to reach the sea any more and dried up in the Thar desert. It has been proposed that the Sarasvati of the early Rigveda corresponds to the Ghaggar-Hakra before these changes took place (the "Old Ghaggar"), and the late Vedic end Epic Sarasvati disappearing in the desert to the Ghaggar-Hakra following the diversion of Sutlej and Yamuna.

The wide river bed (paleo-channel) of the Ghaggar river suggest that the river once flowed full of water during the great meltdown of the Himalayan Ice Age glaciers, some 10,000 years ago, and that it then continued through the entire region, in the presently dry channel of the Hakra River, possibly emptying into the Rann of Kutch. It supposedly dried up due to the capture of its tributaries by the Indus system and the Yamuna river, and later on, additionally, the loss of water in much of its catchment area due to deforestation and overgrazing.[23] This is supposed by some to have happened at the latest in 1900 BCE [24][25]

Painted Grey Ware sites (ca. 1000 BCE) have been found in the bed and not on the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra river, suggesting that the river had dried up before this period.[26]

Helmand river

Suggestions for the identity of the early Rigvedic Sarasvati River include the Helmand River in Afghanistan, separated from the watershed of the Indus by the Sanglakh Range. The Helmand historically besides Avestan Haetumant bore the name Haraxvaiti, which is the Avestan form cognate to Sanskrit Sarasvati. The Avesta extols the Helmand in similar terms to those used in the Rigveda with respect to the Sarasvati: "the bountiful, glorious Haetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious flood".[27]

Kocchar (1999) argues that the Helmand is identical to the early Rigvedic Sarasvati of suktas 2.41, 7.36 etc., and that the Nadistuti sukta (10.75) was composed centuries later, after an eastward migration of the bearers of the Rigvedic culture to the western Gangetic plain some 600 km to the east. The Sarasvati by this time had become a mythical "disappeared" river, and the name was transferred to the Ghaggar which disappeared in the desert.

The identification of the Helmand with the early Rig Vedic Sarasvati is not without difficulties. However, the geographic situation of the Sarasvati and the Helmand rivers are similar. Both flow into a terminal lakes: the Helmand into a swamp in the Iranian plateau (the extended wetland and lake system of Hamun-i-Helmand). This matches the Rigvedic description of the Sarasvati flowing to the samudra, which at that time meant 'confluence', 'lake', 'heavenly lake, ocean'; the current meaning of 'terrestrial ocean' was not even felt in the Pali Canon.[28] In post-Rig Vedic texts (Brahmanas) the Sarasvati ("she who has (many) lakes"), is said to disappear ("dive under") in the desert.

This represents a case where a river once hypothecised to be non-existent, "mythical" or "ahistorical" (not historical) - basically because there was no visible evidence of its existence in recent times - as a result of further evidence, is now hypothecized to have existed.

The historical existence of something - a person, or a river or the historical basis of events in a story in a manuscript - is always best represented in the hypothetical form. To paraphrase Detering in the quote above, in ancient history there are no absolutely established historical facts, but rather in their place, hypotheses for authenticity and hypotheses for inauthenticity.

If we're going to talk about hypotheses, I think the position is clearly expressed by saying that at one time the hypothesis that there never was any Sarasvati River was preferred, but that the discovery of fresh evidence has led many to prefer the hypothesis that there was once a Sarasvati River. I think that embellishing the statement with references to abstract concepts like 'historicity' and 'ahistoricity' or 'authenticity' and 'inauthenticity' is unnecessary and serves only to confuse.

mountainman · 12-02-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This represents a case where a river once hypothecised to be non-existent, "mythical" or "ahistorical" (not historical) - basically because there was no visible evidence of its existence in recent times - as a result of further evidence, is now hypothecized to have existed.

The historical existence of something - a person, or a river or the historical basis of events in a story in a manuscript - is always best represented in the hypothetical form. To paraphrase Detering in the quote above, in ancient history there are no absolutely established historical facts, but rather in their place, hypotheses for authenticity and hypotheses for inauthenticity.

If we're going to talk about hypotheses, I think the position is clearly expressed by saying that at one time the hypothesis that there never was any Sarasvati River was preferred, but that the discovery of fresh evidence has led many to prefer the hypothesis that there was once a Sarasvati River.

Yes, that is clearly expressed as well.

The analogy with Jesus and Paul (in the field of history) is the reverse one. For over 1600 years the hypothesis that there was an historical jesus (and/or paul) in antiquity was the preferred one, and perhaps still is (on a statistical basis), but that the re-examination of all the evidence has led many to prefer the hypothesis that there was no historical jesus (and/or paul).

Quote:

I think that embellishing the statement with references to abstract concepts like 'historicity' and 'ahistoricity' or 'authenticity' and 'inauthenticity' is unnecessary and serves only to confuse.

I have been trying to stress the critical importance of both the positive and negative facets of evidence, and of their corresponding hypotheses at a fundamental level.

Some people prefer the hypothesis that there was an historical jesus (and/or paul) in antiquity, while others prefer the antithetical hypothesis. We have the same evidence before us, but the hypotheses being framed from it are different, as are the conclusions which will be drawn from them, for each group of these people.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.