Chaucer

You're kidding! I thought I had seen it all on this board here.

Tell me more.

Chaucer

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?
What is your point ?


Lao Tsu, whose name comes in various forms such as Lao Tzu; also Lao Tse, Lao Tu, Lao-Tzu, Lao-Tsu, Laotze, Laosi, Lao Zi, Laocius et al, may simply mean "Old Master" - possibly being a title for various different people. The evidence for an actual historic person is very late and dubious.

The evidence for Lao Tsu is late and weak. Which is probably why you didn't actually cite any.

Wiki says :

"Historians variously contend that Laozi is a synthesis of multiple historical figures, that he is a mythical figure, or that he actually lived in the 4th century BC, concurrent with the Hundred Schools of Thought and Warring States Period.

The earliest reliable reference (circa 100 BC) to Laozi is found in the Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) by Chinese historian Sima Qian (ca. 145–86 BC),"

So, once again, the evidence is from CENTURIES later, and not at all clear.


Isn't it funny how so many people have their favourite myth who they INSIST is real, while all the OTHERS are not.


Kapyong

Toto

See this thread and the links in it:

Historical Mohammed

There are also respectable historians who think that Confucius was invented by Jesuit missionaries in China as the historicized author of Chinese traditional morality.

Chaucer

And I've found, after an hour or so of Googling, similar speculation here --

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...4/152943.shtml

-- here --

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wor...-teaching.html

-- here --

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JK18Aa01.html

-- and here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1226...eTabs_comments

Yes, this seems as dubious to me as all the mytherism. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. As a genuine rationalist, I should be the least surprised of all that there are many, many cranks out there, shouldn't I? :-)

Chaucer

Von Bek

How do they explain references to Confucius and his teachings in the Qin dynasty, which was centuries prior to C.E.? The historians claiming that Jesuits invented Confucius should have their degrees revoked. If you can remember the names of the historians who say this, please list them here. I would really love to see their argument. If Confucius was invented, he was a Chinese invention, and it happened long before Christianity came to China.

mountainman

G'day K,

What's not myth (in theory) is the ancient historical evidence itself.

It's funny allright, but only if you are an OUTSIDER to the myth.
If you are an INSIDER to the myth you may not see the OUTSIDER's point of view.

Myth belief has always been conditioned by the culture and the age. It has rarely been critically examined until recent times. Strangely enough, it seems only through some background process of critical ancient historical enquiry and examination of the evidence itself, that this dichotomy is manfest, and is only then, seen as funny.

In the field of ancient history, evidence is supposed to underly belief, and not the other way around. Hence both the historical Buddha and the historical Jesus appear to be floundering in a sea of uncertainty in that field - of ancient history.

"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know". --- Harry S. Truman

Best wishes,



Pete

Toto

Confucius and the Scholars

I misstated. There are scholars who think that there was a historical Confucius who bore little relation to the mythicized founder of a philosophy, and there is one scholar who thinks that the Jesuits invented Confucianism, and that Confucius himself was a myth, invented by the Chinese.

mountainman

The Zen of Buddhist archaeology: earliest texts

The language of Buddhist archaeology

Archaeology and identity of the first Buddhists

Von Bek

"Confucius" is a European form of his name, that much is true. The rest Jensen says, not so much. There are extensive literary records in China predating the arrival of Christianity that make mention of this tradition. We can see how some dynasties favored Confucian teachings while others did not.

I like this, taken from the link Toto provided above:

Bold mine.

avi

Absolutely agree.

http://ctext.org/chun-qiu-zuo-zhuan

Sorry, friend. I don't agree. Lao Zi only has one proper spelling of his name. Those other spellings reflect Wade Giles (colonial era Romanizations), and are invalid, and frankly, RUDE, at least to those of us who ardently oppose the imperialism of 19th century Europe/NorthAmericans.

Before spouting off about LaoZi, KongZi, and any other Chinese philosopher, I suggest spending a little time learning PuTongHua.

Not only is it the single most important language in the world today, having more native speakers than any other, but it is also the easiest language to learn....

The evidence for the existence of LaoZi and KongZi is rock solid, in my book, and unlike Christianity, for example, includes PHYSICAL specimens, which had been buried for more than 2200 years, dating back to QinShiHuang, emperor who ordered construction of the Great Wall. For example, one finds DaoDeJing, by LaoZi, unearthed at MaWangDui, in HuNan, in the early 1970's, and more recently in tombs excavated near LuoYang in HeNan, including jade and bamboo etchings, all of them much more than two millenia in age.

But there is a more serious problem with your post. There is nothing mythical about DaoDeJing. It is a philosophical work, not a religious manifesto.

You would be on safer ground complaining that both KongZi (LunYu) and LaoZi are authors of dubious credentials, with insufficiently detailed biographical summaries, not unlike the paucity of historical records of Socrates or Alexander of Macedonia. There is simply no basis for comparison between DaoDeJing and any of the four Gospels, other than that humans created both....

Would you think it proper to complain that both the Egyptologist/Mathematical genius Baron Fourier and the progressive agrarian socialist, Charles Fourier drank wine for lunch, so must have engaged slaves to work their vineyards? Sounds rather silly, no?

I solicited a reference, from one of your supposed historical sources, documenting the infamous origin of Mohammed.

He was an illiterate camel drover, who raided other caravans, and used the wealth obtained by this method (primitive accumulation, in Marxist terminology) to hire a mercenary army to conquer first Arabia, then Iran, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, India, and so on....

I am eager to learn of your historian who has documented this gross act of political terrorism.

avi