aa5874

This author seems to confuse Constatine with the character called Jesus. Followers of this Jesus of the NT were called Atheists, called one another heretics and followers of the devil and were persecuted and harrassed, it was only when Constantine, in the 4th century, colluded with Eusebius that followers of Jesus changed western civilization.

I cannot find any credible non-apologetic source that shows followers of Jesus changed anything before Constantine.

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=aa5874;5226638]I think it should be noted that this mantra of yours contains an extremely question begging assumption (along with the fallacy of bifurcation) -- namely, that by their very nature "apologies" cannot and do not contain anything historically reliable and cannot/should not be regarded/used by historians as evidence of the historicity of the figure whose reputation a given Apology defends (that's what Apologetic literature does) or as sources for determining what that figure did and said.

I wonder, then, what you have to say to Classical historians who think that The Apology of Plato and The Apology of Xenophon stand not only as excellent testimony to the historicity of Socrates (and who think would do so even in the absence of any non apologetic contemporary corroborative evidence), but also as extremely good sources for determining what went on at the trial of Socrates (the historicity of which is, to my knowledge, attested only in apologetic and non contemporaneous sources) and for what Socrates taught about the duties of a philosopher.

What do you know about ancient Apologetic literature that they don't? Why should we accept your view about the worth of Apologetic literature over theirs?

Jeffrey

Toto

This is the fourth time I have read Jeffrey's reply to aa5874. Neither the original assertion nor the rebuttal gain anything from repetition. Can we call a truce?

As to the Apology of Plato, I don't know of anyone who was excommunicated or burned at the stake because of a bad guess as to the historicity of Socrates.

mountainman

Thomas is supposed to have converted India to christianity (in the role of a slave). I am not sure that I have seen the apocryphal writings classified as either apologetic or non-apologetic. These (apocryphal) writings need to be factored into the history somewhere in the ball-park.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

So what? The issue isn't the historicity of Socrates let alone the consequences for denying. The issue is whether classical scholars think, as A what's his name, if consistent, thinks they should, that because it is apologetic in nature, literature such as The Apology of Plato and that of Xenophon should be disregarded as evidence for the historicity of the figure defended within them or as a good source for affirming the claim (made, to my knowledge, nowhere else contemporaneously except in these apologies) that Socrates was put on trial in Athens on capital charges, for our knowledge of what these charges were and what Socrates said at his trial -- and if not, why not.

Jeffrey

Headache

Are there any claims of Socrates doing any supernatural things? Miracles? Raising dead people etc? If not, I really don't care if he was real or fictional.

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Headache;5238243]There are claims -- in The Apology in fact -- that Socrates had a divine mission and ministry and was spoken of as the wisest man alive by Apollo himself through his oracle and that he was guided in his actions by a divine voice to which Socrates alone was privy. (I take it that you haven't read it).

But that's irrelevant. The issue is the whether or not by virtue of its genre apologetic literature is (and is considered by classical scholars and professional historians as) worthless as evidence for the historicity and for the life and "ministry" of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry it is intent to defend.

Would you care to give us your considered opinion on this matter?

Jeffrey

Headache

Using book A as evidence for the contents of book A is absurd, no matter what book A is about.

If book A is all there exists and no other supporting evidence for the content in book A can be found outside it, I would not put much weight on it's content in any other fashion than as a pure fictional story. Why should I?

Jeffrey Gibson

Curiously, that's not what I asked you to give us your considered opion on.

And even if it were, is your stance something that professional historians would accept?

The question is why shouldn't you? And does it have to be all or nothing?

In any case, the problem here isn't that we have only one book. For Jesus and for the trial of Socrates we have more that one book. The problem, using A what's his name's criteria for determining what's worthless as am historical source and what's not, is that they are all apologies.

So I ask you once again, is it the case, as A what's his name claims it is, and do professional historians accept that it is the case, that by virtue of their genre, their function, and their intent, apologies are worthless as evidence for the historicity, and as sources for the life, and teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry they are intent to defend?

If professional historians do not accept this as the case, what does A what's his name know about apologetic literature that professional historians don't?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Interesting that you are only asking for this now, when A what's his name has been chanting his mantra for god knows how long. Why should mine be a bother and his isn't?

In any case, I'm winning to call a truce as soon as A what's his name answers my question. And by answering it, I don't mean dodging/characterizing it. I mean telling me exactly what he about ancient apologetic wirks and the genre of Apologia that classical scholars and professional historians don't that allows him to be so certain about worthlessness of apologetic literature as a evidence for the historicity of the figure such literature speaks about.

Jeffrey