Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 04-21-2003, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
Are there not separate sources for the greek gods? Was there not faith in these gods by the people who followed them(i.e. greeks and romans)? They apparently believed enough in these gods to sacrifice humans to them, I would say that gives them equal FAITH that historically these figures existed. Not to mention that the stories, have REAL cities and kings in them. Exactly what would we compare? Do you have a no for any of those questions? If not, then we are in agreement. Mulitple attestation, in different works, a faith that such a person or figure existed, detailed accounts involving real and historic backdrops, and frequent embarrassing actions that obviously wouldn't be written about if they were not true. I think you should be up here with me waving our arms trying to get zeus's attention. I'm waving now, I hear thunder, obviously he heard me(either that, or the storm outside is just giving off lightning with the resultant air compression producing sonic booms).

I asked you for a stratification of sources regarding Achilles. I did not ask you to whine with more nonsense like attempts to prove the historicity of Greek Gods. If you simply made an uncritical comparison to Achilles without any real knowledge of the sources involved then please state so. Just come out and say, "I don't know what I was talking about." Otherwise, give me the sources.

Vinnie

keyser_soze · 04-21-2003, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I asked you for a stratification of sources regarding Achilles. I did not ask you to whine with more nonsense like attempts to prove the historicity of Greek Gods. If you simply made an uncritical comparison to Achilles without any real knowledge of the sources involved then please state so. Just come out and say, "I don't know what I was talking about." Otherwise, give me the sources.

Vinnie

Of course I made an uncritical comparison using achilles as an example. The point remains however, that meiers would support the greek or roman gods,or any others that have multiple sources. If I get the chance, I'll post a bit that I posted last year on greek gods, with multiple sources(Plutarch was one of them, iirc), would that satisfy you? After all, if there is information about them in more than one source, shows that people obviously believed that they existed, and were based on a historical backdrop.... Achilles was just the most ridiculous one that came to mind. There probably are mulitple sources for him, but all that comes to mind is a vague recollection of homer...Tell you what, I'll look him up a bit later, just to make you happy.

Vinnie · 04-21-2003, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Of course I made an uncritical comparison using achilles as an example.

Thank you for your honesty.

Show me where a historian mentions the person clearly as a historical figure. I do not deny the possibility of such references. They may very well exist. But I do know that Josephus mentions Jesus along with his brother James and he is not too far removed from the time of Jesus and was a contemporary with James. Several other indepoendent and earlier texts mentions James and Jesus as well. Is there attestation for Achilles on this level? On a scale of historical plausibility, given a stratification of sources and an evaluation of theeir content I see Jesus as clearly being historical.

All the Jesus texts copnverge on a similar ground zero:
http://www.acfaith.com/jchronology.html

Simple questions. Did sayings lists of Achilles develop within several decades of ground zero? Were there any alleged relatives of Achilles? Any alleged eyewitness followers? How far removed are the sources from their time in history? Do they appear trustworthy? When is the first stratume? What soruces do we have from this period? Establish an outer limit on the alleged time frame of achilles' life.

With all that being said, how does your point remain? My methodology for reconstructing the HJ is based upon prior considerations of the sources. All sources are not equal and some are to be valued differently. I would not apply such a method to all sources. Besides, its not mechanically implemented. You have to take into account redactional tendencies of the author, his respect for cause and effect, possible lines of transmission, etc.

You are still attacking the straw man version of multiply attested material which says "it occured in two sources so its true" route.

To use an example, have you ever read Crossan? The existence of the Twelve is supported by a very early first stratum Pauline material, and it is multiply attested as well. This fits the bill but Crossan rejects this as going back to the historical Jesus. Each early and multiply attested element has to be discussed in depth.

Another example: Even if early, a multiply attested datum that says something which is impossible cannot be true regardless of the MA. The question would be, what inspired that? Or is there truth behind it? Does it have some truth in garbled form?

Quote:

The point remains however, that meiers would support the greek or roman gods,or any others that have multiple sources.

You have not demonstrated that the account of Achilles goes against the grain of the story and your point certainly does not remain at this point. You are trying to critique methods without first understanding the necessity of a proper evaluation of the sources being used. As I stated before, history deals with source and method.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 04-21-2003, 05:57 AM

and how did Achilles die?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 04-21-2003, 06:13 AM

A place to start: http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Achilles.html
???

It is important that you point out a general time-frame on Achilles as well. When is all this said to have occured?

Vinnie

Vinnie · 04-21-2003, 06:20 AM

We have a number 8.

Methodology Used by Mythicists at II

1. If you see a historical datum regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the Pauline corpus it must be an interpolation.
2. If a datum is not mentioned in a source, even if that source has no real need or business mentioning that specific datum, it equates with a failure to know such information.
3. The existence of nature defying-miracles and OT themes allows for wholesale dismissal of a text.
4. Critique the methodology of bona fide HJ scholars while completely ignoring the whole tedious and cumbersome business of sources.
5. Make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural or extraordinary claim. Then say that history cannot reconstruct the supernatural or demand extrordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.
6. Mark invented the historical Jesus material so none of it can be used as a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.
7. The principle of using earlier, independent and widespread traditions to reconstruct ancient history is unreliable because this method which presumably is goint to be "mechanically implemented" would prove the existence of numerous deities and miracles.
8. Embarrassment can be applied to Achilles and known fictional works like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (e.g. Frodo and the ring in the RotK). Ergo, the embarrassment criteria or "material which goes against the theological grain of the Gospels" is invalidated.

Vinnie

keyser_soze · 04-21-2003, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
and how did Achilles die?

Vinnie

He was taken down by a poisoned arrow to his heel(by paris?), if I am recalling homer correctly(it's been twenty years). I don't know if there is separate source material about him(knowing the greeks, yes there might very well be, they were avid writers). But as to your prior statement, we are arguing at cross purposes, I agree that history is defined by method and sources. I have no problem whatsoever with that, but in this case the method is flawed. That is my ONLY complaint. I don't even have a problem with your sources, for the most part. The whole problem is that neither HJ or MJ can be proven. It's all supposition, and either side has strong points.

Vinnie · 04-21-2003, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
He was taken down by a poisoned arrow to his heel(by paris?), if I am recalling homer correctly(it's been twenty years). I don't know if there is separate source material about him(knowing the greeks, yes there might very well be, they were avid writers). But as to your prior statement, we are arguing at cross purposes, I agree that history is defined by method and sources. I have no problem whatsoever with that, but in this case the method is flawed. That is my ONLY complaint. I don't even have a problem with your sources, for the most part. The whole problem is that neither HJ or MJ can be proven. It's all supposition, and either side has strong points.

The method is predicated on an evaluation of the individual sources and specific cases. You cannot care about the method and not care about the sources. They cannot be separated like that.

And I never said I can offer a proof of the existence of Jesus. It is "highly probable" or what I deem another way of saying the same thing: "virtually certain on a historical level". That is the best history offers and I have argued nothing more than that.

When was Achilles killed? Who was Harris? Was Homer engaging in biography?Are there any possible lines of transmission for his sources?

Vinnie

Vinnie

keyser_soze · 04-21-2003, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
The method is predicated on an evaluation of the individual sources and specific cases. You cannot care about the method and not care about the sources. They cannot be separated like that.

And I never said I can offer a proof of the existence of Jesus. It is "highly probable" or what I deem another way of saying the same thing: "virtually certain on a historical level". That is the best history offers and I have argued nothing more than that. but if it were "virtually certain historically", there wouldn't be much of a question amongst all these people though. If there were little doubt, I think the opposition would be a tiny minority, whereas amongst those who treat the bible as a fictional work, part history, part story....then there wouldn't be this pretty equal separation between MJ and HJ. But then again, I could be wrong When was Achilles killed? Sometime between 1200-700 BCE if I recall correctly Who was Harris?Don't know who harris was, it's been 20 years so it's a bit sketchy, but as I recall it was Paris who shot him. Was Homer engaging in biography?Good question, there is thought that he was relaying from the greek dark ages(during which time the trojan war was thought to be fought. Considering he wrote 5 plus centuries after the fact, it is deemed that he put a remarkable amount of effort into what passed for "history". I'll dig into a couple of books that I read on it a long time ago, I think Rieu wrote one, and I forget the other, but both went into painful depth to lay out the history behind the Illiad. Hmm. This may turn out to be interesting after all...You know, thinking back on it, it would seem that they based the characters off of actual people as well. I mean, who's to say that achilles is not based off of an outstanding warrior from during the greek dark ages? He could well be an actual person(although I highly doubt he was dipped into the river styx). But then again, both he and jesus could have been the creation of a being that took parts from several other outstanding people and combined them. I would easily see real people being the kernel of a myth, I am after all a HJ....And it's still the method that we find fault with, not the conclusion. Or at least for me.

Vinnie

Vinnie

joedad · 04-21-2003, 11:20 AM

Vinnie,

Would you complete the following sentences for me?

Historically speaking, a Unicorn is most likely ___________.

Historically speaking, Achilles is most likely ___________.

Historically speaking, the Christian Jesus is most likely __________.

Just asking for your best thoughts.

joe.

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

04-21-2003, 05:57 AM	#24
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	and how did Achilles die? Vinnie

04-21-2003, 06:13 AM	#25
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	A place to start: http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Achilles.html ??? It is important that you point out a general time-frame on Achilles as well. When is all this said to have occured? Vinnie

04-21-2003, 06:20 AM	#26
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	We have a number 8. Methodology Used by Mythicists at II 1. If you see a historical datum regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the Pauline corpus it must be an interpolation. 2. If a datum is not mentioned in a source, even if that source has no real need or business mentioning that specific datum, it equates with a failure to know such information. 3. The existence of nature defying-miracles and OT themes allows for wholesale dismissal of a text. 4. Critique the methodology of bona fide HJ scholars while completely ignoring the whole tedious and cumbersome business of sources. 5. Make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural or extraordinary claim. Then say that history cannot reconstruct the supernatural or demand extrordinary proof for this extraordinary claim. 6. Mark invented the historical Jesus material so none of it can be used as a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. 7. The principle of using earlier, independent and widespread traditions to reconstruct ancient history is unreliable because this method which presumably is goint to be "mechanically implemented" would prove the existence of numerous deities and miracles. 8. Embarrassment can be applied to Achilles and known fictional works like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (e.g. Frodo and the ring in the RotK). Ergo, the embarrassment criteria or "material which goes against the theological grain of the Gospels" is invalidated. Vinnie

04-21-2003, 11:20 AM	#30
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	Vinnie, Would you complete the following sentences for me? Historically speaking, a Unicorn is most likely ___________. Historically speaking, Achilles is most likely ___________. Historically speaking, the Christian Jesus is most likely __________. Just asking for your best thoughts. joe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.