Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 06-01-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:
[QB]Vorkosigan, I can think of another case like what you're talking about.

Here's another one. From my response to Chapter 11 of Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict".

Quote:

The Norse poem The Lay of Atli provides an example from another culture. In that saga, we read about the great Germanic warrior Atli, as well as the deeds of other players such as Gunnar and Jormunrek. Woven throughout the whole tale, we see mythological heroes such as Sigmund and Sigurd, who perform impossible feats and win renown for themselves. We also observe the behind-the-scene machinations of the gods, working their will through the actions of the players, rewarding some, while punishing others. Surprisingly enough, The Lay of Atli has some basis in historical fact and actual historical figures. But is that enough to accept it as an ancient testimony to factual history?

Not at all. Just because a story starts with factual history, that is no guarantee that the story will conclude with all those facts fully intact. For example, the real Atli was actually not a Germanic warrior at all; the name is a corruption of Attila, the selfsame Hun who overran Europe. Gunnar, Gudrun's brother, is a corruption of Gundicar, king of the Burgundians. Another character in this Norse poem, Jormunrek, is actually Ermanaric, king of the Goths. Any interaction between Ermanaric and Attila is, of course, flatly impossible; we know Ermanaric died 59 years before Attila ever became king of the Huns. Other historical impossibilities also surface in The Lay of Atli. Sigurd's father is referred to as the king of the Franks; yet Sigurd himself is referred to as the king of the Huns. Gunnar's historical predecessor (Gundicar) was king of the Burgundians; yet Gunnar himself is impossibly referred to in this tale as king of the Goths. In spite of all these errors and transpositions of detail, the story stubbornly continues, oblivious to the twisted history it contains.

Real people and events provide the raw material for legends. But imagination and retelling often create a far different final story.

Veil of Fire · 06-01-2002, 09:15 PM

I'm sorry, but Bede's whole argument sounds like one big example of a Special Pleading fallacy. I have yet to see the principle of relevant difference even hinted at.

Boshko · 06-01-2002, 09:28 PM

Well as far as Confucious goes specifically, if he existed its very doubtful that he is the direct source of more than some of Book 4 of the analects (and Lao Tzu definately did not have anything to do with the Tao Te Ching while I'm on the subject).

Answerer · 06-01-2002, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:


Buddha lived around 500BC but almost nothing about his life is known. The texts that tell about him date up to several centuries AD and many of the myths can be seen in other Hindu hero cycles. That said, again his existence is widely accepted although due to evidence which is much later and poorer than for Jesus.

Vork also mentioned Confucius. Just to be clear - his existence and some details of his life are unquestionable. I'm sure Vork can dig up a nutter who thinks otherwise but I can find a huge number of creationists which doesn't mean we cast doubt on evolution.

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Come on Bede, I agree that in some case, people like to add favours or incredible things into the life story of their great leaders or teachers but this doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just mean that their life-story should not be taken too seriously, thats all and not that their existences should be rejected completely.

Vorkosigan · 06-01-2002, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:


Real people and events provide the raw material for legends. But imagination and retelling often create a far different final story.

Great example! Maybe we should create a database of stories that contain historical figures transmogrified -- but then that would contain just about every myth ever created...

Vorkosigan

Answerer · 06-01-2002, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


Great example! Maybe we should create a database of stories that contain historical figures transmogrified -- but then that would contain just about every myth ever created...

Vorkosigan

Like the characters in 'Lord of the Rings'?

RyanS2 · 06-02-2002, 01:15 PM

Sauron, that was a wonderful example, thanks for sharing. Has anyone seen the movie "Artificial Intelligence"? It's a remake of Pinnochio with an artificially created boy programmed with A.I., who wants to be a real boy so his Mom will love him. I thought it would be a pretty funny satire of the way Christians deny the Christian mythical elements if it was satirized:

"In the case of David, (the A.I.), we find that he is after the love of his mother, who doesn't love him as much as his brother, who is real. Pinnochio has no brother, and the toy maker loves him fine as he is. We can thus see that the two stories have no common elements. The few motifs where Pinnochio is alluded to in the movie in no way indicate that one was inspired by the other, and the incidental quotation from Pinnochio only shows that it is a vague, reoccuring pattern which is in all movies, and in no way means anything. The Blue Fairy is in the movie, but she doesn't do anything, unlike the Pinnochio movie, and there are no aliens in Pinnochio. Thus, we can safely conclude that there is no evidence of Pinnochio having inspired Artificial Intelligence, and any claim to the contrary is just rubbish."

Toto · 06-02-2002, 01:39 PM

Here's an article I posted a while back on another man-myth confusion:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000222&p=" target="_blank">Juan Diego - Man or Myth</a>

{edited to add - the first link has expired}

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

06-02-2002, 02:28 PM

Vorkosigan,

Once again, you are erecting strawmen.

Congratulations on realising that the 12th century epics about Roland are fictional. So are the 3rd century stories about Jesus. But the point is that Einhard, writing just after 40 years, is a valuable historical source. Ditto Mark.

You are ignoring good historical method by trying to compare the second generation writing on Jesus with the epic of Roland/Arthur/Robin three and more centuries later. I know you've bought into the ancient Messiah idea to get around this but that is an ad hoc hypothesis that again ignores method. You claim that students of the HJ have no methodology but they do and those who use it, like Meier, Michael Grant and Crossan (on his good days) can tell us quite a bit about HJ.

As Ryan pointed out, a lot of what is taught as history is bunk (he could have added the Flat Earth and the conflict between science and religion). That doesn't mean we should declare a plague on all their houses and ignore the work of good historians. The alternative is radical post modernism which you disown even while you practice it.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan · 06-02-2002, 03:21 PM

Vorkosigan,
Congratulations on realising that the 12th century epics about Roland are fictional. So are the 3rd century stories about Jesus. But the point is that Einhard, writing just after 40 years, is a valuable historical source. Ditto Mark.

Round and round we go. We don't have an Einhard for Jesus, do we? How sober is Mark's POV? Not very....Mark is clearly creating and transmitting legend. That is Crossan's point: transmission, in legends, is creative transmutation. There is no reason to assume that anything Mark says is true.

You are ignoring good historical method by trying to compare the second generation writing on Jesus with the epic of Roland/Arthur/Robin three and more centuries later. I know you've bought into the ancient Messiah idea to get around this but that is an ad hoc hypothesis that again ignores method. You claim that students of the HJ have no methodology but they do and those who use it, like Meier, Michael Grant and Crossan (on his good days) can tell us quite a bit about HJ.

No, Bede, Crossan has said it bluntly in the Birth of Christianity: NT studies has no method for reaching into the mountain of data and pulling out an HJ. Meier's criteria are worthless.

I have not bought into the ancient Messiah claim. I know of no reason to accept or reject it, just as I know of no reason to accept or reject any particular portion of the Christian legend. We are literally without sources on this time, so there is no Einhard we can turn to to help us correct our legendary history. There is literally no method for determining truth from fiction in all this.

That is the point of all these legends. They use historical characters, but completely redefine and re-arrange them. The material in the gospels is legendary. It is not historical.

religion). That doesn't mean we should declare a plague on all their houses and ignore the work of good historians. The alternative is radical post modernism which you disown even while you practice it.

Now you are just being funny. I am not ignoring the work of good historians. In point of fact, I revel in it. Rather, I am asking the assumptions we make about Xtian legend are different than the assumptions we make about other legends. What is, as another poster asked, the relevant difference between this legend cycle and all others?

Vorkosigan

06-02-2002, 01:39 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's an article I posted a while back on another man-myth confusion: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000222&p=" target="_blank">Juan Diego - Man or Myth</a> {edited to add - the first link has expired} [ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2002, 09:15 PM	#12
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	I'm sorry, but Bede's whole argument sounds like one big example of a Special Pleading fallacy. I have yet to see the principle of relevant difference even hinted at.

06-01-2002, 09:28 PM	#13
Boshko Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Wesleyan University Posts: 361	Well as far as Confucious goes specifically, if he existed its very doubtful that he is the direct source of more than some of Book 4 of the analects (and Lao Tzu definately did not have anything to do with the Tao Te Ching while I'm on the subject).

06-02-2002, 01:15 PM	#17
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	Sauron, that was a wonderful example, thanks for sharing. Has anyone seen the movie "Artificial Intelligence"? It's a remake of Pinnochio with an artificially created boy programmed with A.I., who wants to be a real boy so his Mom will love him. I thought it would be a pretty funny satire of the way Christians deny the Christian mythical elements if it was satirized: "In the case of David, (the A.I.), we find that he is after the love of his mother, who doesn't love him as much as his brother, who is real. Pinnochio has no brother, and the toy maker loves him fine as he is. We can thus see that the two stories have no common elements. The few motifs where Pinnochio is alluded to in the movie in no way indicate that one was inspired by the other, and the incidental quotation from Pinnochio only shows that it is a vague, reoccuring pattern which is in all movies, and in no way means anything. The Blue Fairy is in the movie, but she doesn't do anything, unlike the Pinnochio movie, and there are no aliens in Pinnochio. Thus, we can safely conclude that there is no evidence of Pinnochio having inspired Artificial Intelligence, and any claim to the contrary is just rubbish."

06-02-2002, 02:28 PM	#19
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Vorkosigan, Once again, you are erecting strawmen. Congratulations on realising that the 12th century epics about Roland are fictional. So are the 3rd century stories about Jesus. But the point is that Einhard, writing just after 40 years, is a valuable historical source. Ditto Mark. You are ignoring good historical method by trying to compare the second generation writing on Jesus with the epic of Roland/Arthur/Robin three and more centuries later. I know you've bought into the ancient Messiah idea to get around this but that is an ad hoc hypothesis that again ignores method. You claim that students of the HJ have no methodology but they do and those who use it, like Meier, Michael Grant and Crossan (on his good days) can tell us quite a bit about HJ. As Ryan pointed out, a lot of what is taught as history is bunk (he could have added the Flat Earth and the conflict between science and religion). That doesn't mean we should declare a plague on all their houses and ignore the work of good historians. The alternative is radical post modernism which you disown even while you practice it. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

06-02-2002, 03:21 PM	#20
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vorkosigan, Congratulations on realising that the 12th century epics about Roland are fictional. So are the 3rd century stories about Jesus. But the point is that Einhard, writing just after 40 years, is a valuable historical source. Ditto Mark. Round and round we go. We don't have an Einhard for Jesus, do we? How sober is Mark's POV? Not very....Mark is clearly creating and transmitting legend. That is Crossan's point: transmission, in legends, is creative transmutation. There is no reason to assume that anything Mark says is true. You are ignoring good historical method by trying to compare the second generation writing on Jesus with the epic of Roland/Arthur/Robin three and more centuries later. I know you've bought into the ancient Messiah idea to get around this but that is an ad hoc hypothesis that again ignores method. You claim that students of the HJ have no methodology but they do and those who use it, like Meier, Michael Grant and Crossan (on his good days) can tell us quite a bit about HJ. No, Bede, Crossan has said it bluntly in the Birth of Christianity: NT studies has no method for reaching into the mountain of data and pulling out an HJ. Meier's criteria are worthless. I have not bought into the ancient Messiah claim. I know of no reason to accept or reject it, just as I know of no reason to accept or reject any particular portion of the Christian legend. We are literally without sources on this time, so there is no Einhard we can turn to to help us correct our legendary history. There is literally no method for determining truth from fiction in all this. That is the point of all these legends. They use historical characters, but completely redefine and re-arrange them. The material in the gospels is legendary. It is not historical. religion). That doesn't mean we should declare a plague on all their houses and ignore the work of good historians. The alternative is radical post modernism which you disown even while you practice it. Now you are just being funny. I am not ignoring the work of good historians. In point of fact, I revel in it. Rather, I am asking the assumptions we make about Xtian legend are different than the assumptions we make about other legends. What is, as another poster asked, the relevant difference between this legend cycle and all others? Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.