MortalWombat

Peter Pan is partly set in London. Does that make it historical?

spin

Only if you cut out the bits that are obviously not, such as all the flying. Then you'll get to the historical core.


spin

Roger Pearse

This seems to be a list of prejudices -- of various sorts --, through which we are invited to read ancient texts.

I would suggest that we try NOT to read an ancient text of any sort to discover whether he was wise enough to agree with us. Still less should we read it to discover whether he was wise enough to agree with those who set the media agenda of the USA in the early 21st century.

Instead, we need to read these books to see what the writers have to say. We need to allow for the fact that people writing popular guidebooks to Chicago do not footnote each statement. Nor do ancient writers of fables. We need to allow for the fact that those who come after us will wonder -- as we do about the Victorians -- "how could they have believed THAT?!?"; and consider that the ancients might well say the same about us.

In short, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Few modern books are 100% accurate, even measured against their own standards of accuracy. It is improbable that Isaac Newton's textbooks would pass a modern academic publisher. Let's allow for the standards of each age; and then let us look through the author's eyes into a very different world.

I know that lurking in the background of this question is a theological statement to the effect that if Christianity is true then the bible must be written as if it was a textbook of history, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc, devised by someone living in 2002 (and neither earlier or later). I have grave doubts that this theological statement is true; or that Christians hold such a view (although some might unwittingly hold views that have that implication). I don't believe that going down that path is particularly helpful to those who do it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

exbeliever

Yes to the last statement and also a book fabricated by neolithic sheepherders about their astrological beliefs which they passed down from generation to generation with the story ever changing with each re-telling.

mountainman

Dear I and I's JM,

Atheists should start by learning some ancient history, since there is reason to believe that the new testament canon is fiction. The very first independent reporter upon the integrity and the appearance and the running of the new Roman State Monotheistic religion implemented by Constantine with a "christian badge" at Nicaea, was the Emperor Julian.

What does the independent report of Emperor Julian say?

We have no archaeological evidence for "canonical christianity" prior to the fourth century so this fact leaves the way open to postulate that the entire phenomena of the new testament and its religion was commenced in the fourth century.

Athiests could do not better than being skeptical about the claims of the authodox that christianity existed (as claimed) before Constantine. My research has determined that the authodox mainstream position is baseless, because the evidential citations are non-existent (except via Eusebius).

Best wishes,


Pete

Ben C Smith

With open eyes. And through spectacles, if necessary.

Ben.

Lucis

atheists should view them as writings written by people who knew much more about the world than modern scientists

Diogenes the Cynic

The Bible is not one book, it's a library of books amassed over several centuries and comprising a variety of genres. It contains mythology, genealogy, law books, instruction manuals for sacrificing sheep, political propaganda, songs, folktales, a dirty poem, sermons, "prophecies," tribal legends and tall tales, and more. There may even be a shred of historical documentation here and there.

Each book should be evaluated in terms of its own genre, cultural/historical context and intent. Thinking in terms of "true and false" is overly simplistic. While it's obvious that the Bible, by and large, does not represent anything close to journalistic history, it should never be assumed that a given book cannot contain any historically accurate claims. Even a poem or a folktale can have authentic history in it.

Anyway, the first question any interested student (not just atheists) should ask about a given piece of ancient literature is not whether it's "true," but what is the genre. What is the author's intent?

spamandham

If I didn't think you were serious, I would have assumed this was tongue in cheek.

...affirming yet again, that it's impossible to tell a real fundamentalist from a satire of one.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Diogenes,

This is good advice. We should try to determine the authors' intention as much as possible. However, this becomes virtually impossible in many cases.

Take this passage from Exodus 4:21 21And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

The passage makes no sense from the point of view of normal character psychology. Why would a God ask Pharoah to do something and then "harden his heart" -- make him not do it? Perhaps the writer wanted to show that God is in control of all things, even Pharoah's heart. But still God is contradicting himself by taking actions to release the Hebrews and then taking action against that release. The modern reader thinks that the God is crazy.

The passage make more sense when we rewrite it this way:

And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand:
And Moses said: "but I will harden his heart, so that he shall not let the people go."

Under this interpretation, Moses is simply pointing out and correctly predicting that the action of his performing magic before the Pharaoh will be detrimental to the cause of his people. The problem with character psychology disappears.

We may suppose that a careless scribe, left out the phrase "And Moses said" Alternatively, we may suppose that the editor did not like the idea of Moses arguing with God at this point in the story and therefore changed it. At the same, the text as revised would indicate that Pharoah too did not challenge God of his own free will, but that God was in control of his reactions too.

But how are we to determine if
1) The passage was meant as written, so that the reader is confused about what God really wants.
2) The passage was meant as written, but it had a different meaning for the people it was addressed to than it does for the average reader today.
3) There was an error in transmission
4) An editor deliberately changed the passage to give greater power to God and perhaps take away some of the images of Moses and the Pharoah challenging God in the story.

Even worse, there does not seem to be a need for us to see the original character speaking to Moses as Yahweh or God. It is quite possible that the original speaker was Aaron. This would bring it more in line with the "brothers in conflict" motif that is so strong in so many Hebrew stories. Thus the original could have been:


And Aaron said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand:
And Moses said: "but I will harden his heart, so that he shall not let the people go."

Without a precise knowledge of the publication history and transmission of the text, it is virtually impossible to decide between these hypotheses. One may also note dozens or hundreds of other interpretations to this particular passage that scholars have given. Many are equally possible, but unsubstantiated.

It appears we must play a guessing game with no or few clear answers.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay