Duvduv

But of course Plato, Socrates and Hammurab are NOT fictional characters, are they, despite no evidence that they actually existed is any more useful than that of biblical figures.

Minimalist

Oh please, not this tired old canard again.

Minimalist

Depends on a myriad of factors including soil chemistry, moisture, insect activity, use of or lack of embalming, use of or lack of a casket, etc.

Bodies buried in the Egyptian desert tend to mummify naturally. It gets dicier when you get into wetter climates.

Taphonomy is a complex subject.

Jaybees

I'd appreciate an explanation of the above. What does it mean?

Thank you.

Steve Weiss

Someone wrote The Republic. If it weren't Plato, then who? Socrates, on the other hand, may have been a creation of Plato's fertile mind. What do we have from the pen of Socrates?

semiopen

Duvi's argument is typical for him. In this thread he seems to have made two points:

1. Analysis of pottery is stupid (apparently even if it has writing on it)
2. We have no proof that various non-Biblical characters are historical

Socrates is considered historical.

Similarly Hammurabi is historical.

His point is probably that biblical characters don't get the same respect. Perhaps this has some merit, but the issue being discussed here is whether the real David (if there was one) had any similarity to the biblical character.

ficino

In addition to the Socratic sources cited in the Wikipedia article, there are substantial remains of dialogues by Aeschines of Sphettos, who depicts Socrates, Alcibiades, and other known personages. Other followers of Socrates portrayed him in dialogues (mostly known from Diogenes Laertius book 2 + Antisthenes in bk. 6). Comic poets other than Aristophanes also lampooned Socrates, so those are not favorable sources (quotations preserved by Diogenes Laertius 2.27-28). Lest anyone think that all the above are later forgeries, there is also reference to Socrates the actual person by his contemporary, the orator Isocrates (Busiris 5-6), and by another orator, Aeschines (different guy from Aeschines of Sphettos), in Against Timarchus 172, 345 BCE.

Duvduv

That some are obsessed about trying to point out the alleged non-existence of biblical figures while ignoring the fact that other historical figures have no actual evidence to justify claiming their existence either.

ficino

Given the past posts that you quoted, Duvduv, you create the impression that you're claiming that it's "fact" that there is no "actual evidence" to justify claims that Socrates existed. Is this what you are asserting?

Duvduv

All I was asserting by way of example is that there plenty of historical figures for whom no actual empirical evidence exists, and yet people take as a given that they did exist, except in cases of biblical figures such as King David.
Furthermore, there is lack of evidence for the millions upon millions of people buried all over, including in Canaan that would serve as evidence for the existence of non-Israelites (as opposed to Israelites).