Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-31-2005, 02:54 PM | #11 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Credible evidence can come from documents that were written with religious purposes.
best wishes, Peter Kirby |
05-31-2005, 03:04 PM | #12 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Credible evidence can be derived from documents written with a religious purpose. But one would have to demonstrate the circumstances that indicate credibility.
I don't think there is anything much more than common sense here. If George Lukas makes a film about Luke Skywalker, no one takes that as evidence that there was a historic Luke Skywalker, to take a pretty far out example. No one reads the Illiad and assumes that Hera and Aphrodite actually intervened in history. And there might have been a Helen, but you would need more than an ancient legend to prove her existence. |
05-31-2005, 03:16 PM | #13 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
|
Quote:
Whether or not a text is written with a religious purpose is substantially less important than what that text says, and ultimately not terribly relevant in assessing the credibility of a witness. Suggesting otherwise does little more than provide an easy ad hoc, to alleviate the burden in future discussion. And comparing media today with that in antiquity is laughable. Besides which, even ancient fiction can be used as credible testimony. Look at Seneca's accounts of crucifixion, which provide some of the most graphic descriptions. Despite some corroboration in Josephus, much of what Seneca has to say goes unverified. It's nonetheless accepted as more or less genuine--art imitating life, so to speak. Regards, Rick Sumner |
|
05-31-2005, 03:38 PM | #14 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
"More or less - but rather less than more" to quote Gilbert & Sullivan.
I think this topic has been discussed to death before. It isn't so much a religious purpose, as whether there is any intent to record history, combined with any capability of reporting accurate history. Much of Josephus needs to be read with a truckload of salt - I don't think that any reputable historians believe his story about Alexander dropping by the Temple and sacrificing to YHWH. I see no evidence that the gospels were meant to record history. |
05-31-2005, 03:44 PM | #15 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
|
Quote:
In either event, the point still holds. 1 and 2 Macc. are texts written with a "religious purpose" that are considered credible. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regards, Rick Sumner |
|||||
06-01-2005, 10:57 AM | #16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
Quote:
I have grave doubts about how far the final author of the so-called Augustan Histories (biographies of the 2nd and 3rd century Emperors) meant to write history at all as distinct from Historical Fiction. However parts of it are regarded as mostly accurate by modern historians. The intent of a writer is only loosely related to how far his work can be used for historical purposes. Andrew Criddle |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|