Roger Pearse

Actually I just turned the first comment on its head, and didn't otherwise modify it (at least, that was my intention). Neither is a useful way of looking at the world, in my view. I'm averse to debating games too.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gentleexit

I meant (my fault, ambiguous), no interest in the site of Troy, in the Troad as a physical place once Christianity took hold. There was no more homage to the heroes there etc.. Homer "the genius" didn't die (as you say) though "the theological poet" did.

Troy was no longer "Holy Ilium". Jerusalem took "holy" and look what happened! Look - we "found" the cave where Jesus was born and the one where he died and ... and ... But oh - Problem. None of these finds have been verified as historical anything (unlike the work on the Troad). It's hard to even correlate them with the gospels whose geography (unlike Homer's) is so vague or non-existent.

Roger Pearse

How sure are you of the data, tho? As I say, I don't know; but I have doubts. What sort of data search did you do?

But possibly you mean in the purely religious sense? Certainly people wouldn't sacrifice on the grave of Achilles once they had ceased to be pagans, but ... not sure whether that has any special meaning?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gentleexit

The last recorded worship at the Achilleum was by Julian. The first was by Alexander (though Xerxes worshiped in the plain) (list here). Does this mean they worshiped on a grave of a real man called Achilles? Of course not. No more than the Holy Sepulchre is over Jesus' burial cave (or St Peter's is over the tomb of "Peter"). Homer's burial sites are just as fictitious (or real?) as the Bible's.

However, as I wrote above, Homer's backstory (great city on plain, nature of the Troad, the city's fall) is borne out by archeology. That is more than can be said for the Bible.

Go back and forth, Homer to Bible, and you see parallels (places "discovered" and made holy, fictions treated as history) but there is difference too. Only one has elements backed by Archeology. The other is pure-fiction (so far).

bacht

But it's not a fair comparison in the sense that the Hebrews were not great builders of temples, palaces and fortresses, and didn't practise the visual arts of the Greeks. The Minoans left physical remains even though their writing is not fully deciphered yet.

If we didn't have Homer we could still pick through the ruins of Mycenae, Thebes etc. Did the Israelites build anything of note outside of Samaria and Jerusalem (which hasn't really been fully excavated yet)?

Roger Pearse

Doubtless so. But if so, of course it makes your comments about lack of attention to Troy rather meaningless. You don't mean "no-one went to look at Troy in Byzantine times"; you mean "no-one went to worship pagan gods at Troy in Byzantine times." Why this is significant I can't quite work out - sorry!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

fatpie42

I'm sure it's already been stated before, but the Roman Civilisation involves a variety of different sources with differing biases and competing claims. Actually Christian writings have that too, but not until substantially later than the major claims that Christians wish to assert.

If Christians bring up the existence of Julius Caesar, for example, we have letters within Rome, at least one book written by the man himself, and also (-this is the point where you find yourself sighing and giving up on the whole conversation-) coins with Julius Caesar's face on them.

The New Testament involves strongly conflicting accounts which strongly suggest that they were constructed into narratives from smaller anecdotes after the fact, with much that is added and based on often theologically-driven presumptions.

The Tenakh and the other writings collected in the Old Testament, really don't have terribly strong backing in archaeology or accounts by other civilisations (like the Egyptians for example). The accounts of the Bible actually give us more of an insight into the other cultures of the time (such as Babylon) than any external evidence gives of them. If the Jews were really such a vast group as they are claimed to be in the Bible we would expect to see more evidence of them in archaeological evidence. That said, that there was a people at all isn't really what we would dispute. Rather we would wish to question the accuracy of their account. Without evidence to contrast with the claims of the Old Testament it is of limited use as a primary source.

mountainman

Nice Library Gentleexit

grog225

No. I've never seen this argument. Of course it is source of information about antiquity. But it isn't a record of events that actually happened. We have to be careful, we have to have outside confirmation, etc. What is in the Bible (OT and NT) may or may not be reliable. We can't take it at face value.

IamJoseph

Its not possible to negate Ceasar - there is a host of inter-nation archives of it. This is not the case with the NT writings.

The reverse is the case. The first historically inclined descriptions of ancient Egypt come from the Hebrew: its two cities of Pithom and Ramessy built by the Israelites, that Joseph became a Vicar, there was a great famine surrounding Egypt and that it escaped this famine because the Nile never ran dry, the location of the town of Goshen, the King's [coastal] highway, the diets of the Egyptians [100% authentic], that a rebelian instigated by egyptian priests occured after the death of Joseph, and the authentic names of ancient Egyptians [Archeology is evidenced 90% via names]. The oldest egyptian writings is the first two words in the 10 Commandments: namely I AM ['Ano chi] - this was directed at the Pharoah who assumed himself divine, but spoke no Hebrew.



Babylon came later. Prior to this, some 30 nations are listed, which do not exist anymore, but did in the past. E.g. Moab, Median, Amalakites, Philistines, Hittites, Amorites, canaanites, Jebusites, etc - these have their earliest record in the Hebrew bible - and have inter-nation writings as well. In most cases, the Kings are mentioned by name, and wars incurred are also listed.


The Bible marks them out as a miniscule group; there is vast archives and relics of them in archeology - more so than any other nation, including relatively recent entries like christianity and islam.

I know of not a single dis-proof of anything listed in the Hebrew bible, while over 70% has been proven. 3000 year figures like David and Solomon have now been proven; Moses is not proven [in allignment with its texts which says this will be the case], but we have loads of evidence for Moses, and his brother Aaron and sister Miriam, whose graves are shrines today. There is also an Egyptian stelle which is 3,300 years old and mentions Israel by name and a war with them. The Hebrew bible is also the first alphabetical books, with new vowels not contained in the pheonecian: e.g. the 'V' alphabet, thus the original AVraham is spelled ABraham in other languages.

Which other writings compares with the Hebrew bible as far as historical evidence is concerned? Which part of the Hebrew writings is NOT historical?