So it seems like Egypt might ban Ridley Scott's Exodus, because of its "revisionist Zionist distortion of history."
Quote from: Syt on December 29, 2014, 06:34:05 AM
So it seems like Egypt might ban Ridley Scott's Exodus, because of its "revisionist Zionist distortion of history."
Saw this story show up on my Facebook feed. Initially thought it must be the Onion.
That being said, calling the Bible "revisionist Zionist distortion of history" is pretty accurate, if you think about it. :P
Most Hollywood treatments of historic topics are "revisionist distortions of history," though. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 08:02:41 AM
That being said, calling the Bible "revisionist Zionist distortion of history" is pretty accurate, if you think about it. :P
In order to be revisionist there has to be an original version to revise. The Bible is the original version.
Don't scholars these days think that what we have as Bible/Torah today has gone through several authors and centuries of change/editing before becoming figuratively set in stone? That would mean that the Bible as we know it is not the original.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 08:28:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 08:02:41 AM
That being said, calling the Bible "revisionist Zionist distortion of history" is pretty accurate, if you think about it. :P
In order to be revisionist there has to be an original version to revise. The Bible is the original version.
I think the original history (you know, with Egypt, Babylon and Israel, but without God, angels and devils) is the original version. :huh:
Taking the original history and adding God and other supernatural elements to it, in order to justify your spurious claim to some piece of land, sounds pretty revisionist to me.
I'm sure there's another term for untrustworthy primary sources, but it's not revisionism.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
I'm sure there's another term for untrustworthy primary sources, but it's not revisionism.
I don't believe any part of the Bible, with the exception of letters in the New Testament, is a primary historical source. :huh:
As for "Exodus", "Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholarship sees the book as initially a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE)" - so quite clearly a secondary source.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 09:18:30 AM
I think the original history (you know, with Egypt, Babylon and Israel, but without God, angels and devils) is the original version. :huh:
Who wrote this one?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 09:30:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 09:18:30 AM
I think the original history (you know, with Egypt, Babylon and Israel, but without God, angels and devils) is the original version. :huh:
Who wrote this one?
I don't know "who" but there are other historical sources (both primary and secondary) covering the period during which Jews were present in Egypt, if that is what you are asking. We don't know who wrote "Exodus" either, by the way (but it clearly wasn't Moses, even if he was a historical character, as the book was written several centuries after his alleged death and is heavily influenced by Mesopotamian mythology, which is where Jews ended up only centuries after the Exodus).
You do know that the Israelites were people who worshiped Mesopotamian deities well before the captivity right? I think you should stop right now, before you make a fool of yourself.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
You do know that the Israelites were people who worshiped Mesopotamian deities well before the captivity right? I think you should stop right now, before you make a fool of yourself.
Are you saying you believe that Exodus was actually written by Moses and it is a primary historical source? :lol:
No. I'm saying you need to stop before you make a fool of yourself, cause that's what you typically do on this subject.
Quote from: Syt on December 29, 2014, 06:34:05 AM
So it seems like Egypt might ban Ridley Scott's Exodus, because of its "revisionist Zionist distortion of history."
Muslim countries routinely ban films which depict prophets. Yahwemosis is a muslim "prophet" who really was a muslim. So depicting him as anything other than a pious muslim is blasphemous.
I'm tired of Ridley Scott movies.
I don't know who names their kid "Ridley".
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 29, 2014, 10:02:26 AM
I'm tired of Ridley Scott movies.
He peaked rather early.
I LOL'ed hard during the Robin Hood movie beach invasion scene.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
I'm sure there's another term for untrustworthy primary sources, but it's not revisionism.
In this case, the appropriate term is "mythology".
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
In this case, the appropriate term is "mythology".
But it's not polite to say so.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 09:35:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 09:30:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 09:18:30 AM
I think the original history (you know, with Egypt, Babylon and Israel, but without God, angels and devils) is the original version. :huh:
Who wrote this one?
I don't know "who" but there are other historical sources (both primary and secondary) covering the period during which Jews were present in Egypt, if that is what you are asking. We don't know who wrote "Exodus" either, by the way (but it clearly wasn't Moses, even if he was a historical character, as the book was written several centuries after his alleged death and is heavily influenced by Mesopotamian mythology, which is where Jews ended up only centuries after the Exodus).
I don't think there is any actual evidence, the Bible aside, that there ever were any large population of Jews in Egypt, let alone that there were Jewish slaves etc.
It is best to think of the Exodus as pure mythology, perhaps tangentally inspired by some actual events - sort of like the medieval legendarium of King Arthur.
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is
one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
Is Malthus trying to tell me Camelot ain't real?!?! :ultra:
Quote from: katmai on December 29, 2014, 12:12:46 PM
Is Malthus trying to tell me Camelot ain't real?!?! :ultra:
JFK's
adultery was certainly of legendary proportions, but it wasn't mythical. :P
Speaking of Camelot, the "knights" that Clive Owen led were recruited/dragooned from the Sarmatians, an Iranian speaking people.
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 11:59:12 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
I'm sure there's another term for untrustworthy primary sources, but it's not revisionism.
In this case, the appropriate term is "mythology".
There really aren't many primary sources from the time period and supernatural occurrences are reported regularly. Myth and history are very much blurred together. You can take the accounts in the bible and say, "this is second hand, it's not trust worthy", or "this is has magic in it, not trust worthy", and that is entirely valid. But keep in mind that if we apply the same metric to what little we have of written history from that time period we will have precious little left.
I would say that if someone makes up history of a period, but makes it in a clearly fanciful way (i.e. by describing events that could not have, physically, happened) and at the same time in a way that makes him look good and supporting later territorial claims, then it counts as "historical revisionism", even if you do not know exactly what the actual history of the period was.
How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 12:41:38 PM
How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?
Err what?
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 12:41:38 PM
How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?
Err what?
To put it another way, the Israelis were engaging in exactly the same kind of practice as everyone else in that age - myth making.
So if no one had a concept of history in the way you are using that term how can what the Isrealis were doing be considered to be revisionist? ie what "history" were they revising?
Jewish God created the concept of history. It's in the Bible.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2014, 12:46:00 PM
To put it another way, the Israelis were engaging in exactly the same kind of practice as everyone else in that age - myth making.
So if no one had a concept of history in the way you are using that term how can what the Isrealis were doing be considered to be revisionist? ie what "history" were they revising?
Exactly. They weren't expressing themselves in any way that we would recognise as historical. To talk about historical revisionism in the Pentateuch is a bit like complaining that it doesn't scan. It's both correct and entirely missing the point.
On a slightly related note to the Egyptian issues with Exodus, I read an article on the Ebert site that started with a plea for Angelina Jolie not to whitewash Cleopatra.
By "read" of couse I mean I read that opening line and stopped and felt sad.
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
I don't think there is any actual evidence, the Bible aside, that there ever were any large population of Jews in Egypt, let alone that there were Jewish slaves etc.
It is best to think of the Exodus as pure mythology, perhaps tangentally inspired by some actual events - sort of like the medieval legendarium of King Arthur.
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
I'd be really surprised if there wasn't some weird grain of truth in the Exodus story.
Semitic people lived in Egypt in this period. It could have started as "hey remember how our great-great-great grandfather was a Hyksos? Well he wasn't a brutal conqueror-the Egyptians were mean to him." This is also a period when the Egyptians are starting to expand their control in to Canaan, so it might have started as a story of Semitic peoples fleeing Egyptian expansion in to the eastern wilderness and was then reinterpreted as foreshadowing the Babylonian exile.
Can't we just toss the Old Testament under the category of "conventional wisdom"? It's the Old Testament.
I just don't think wholesale fabrication of vaguely historical-sounding ethnic origins is that likely.
So, if you ask a lot of white Americans, they'll talk about how they're "Irish" even if they are actually something like 75% German. For whatever reason, Irishness seems more authentic/prestigious a background than German. Give that a dozen generations and a collapse of literacy and it would probably look like a very weird story that would still have some vague connection to the original narrative of their ancestors coming over from Europe to America.
What? I'm pretty sure white Americans are predominantly Scotch-Irish.
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
Lots of information we have about events before, say, 1400 or so is like that--it all comes from one source or maybe two.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 01:15:52 PM
What? I'm pretty sure white Americans are predominantly Scotch-Irish.
Actually they're the ones least likely to identify any roots in Europe. People who just identify as 'American' rather than anything else are overwhelmingly of Scotch-Irish origin. See the collected works of Jim Webb :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 01:15:52 PM
What? I'm pretty sure white Americans are predominantly Scotch-Irish.
As Sheilbh said, a lot of Scots-Irish are Appalachian or Southern and identify only as "American." German is the single most common ethnic origin in the US. At least white ethnic origin.
Which makes sense. There just wasn't a big enough population base in Scotland and Ireland to populate a huge portion of the 210 something Euro-Americans.
Yet our most common surnames come from Britain- Smith, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, etc.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 12:41:38 PM
How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?
Err what?
Man, I warned you. The concept of "history" didn't exist back then, at least not our concept of history. You might as well talk about "neolithic science" If you throw out sources describing events that can't physically happen then you pretty much throw away 95% of the written documents from the time period. Even basic things like Sumerian kings lists. Hell you are going to throw out books that we know have a firm basis in historical fact, and occur much, much later. For instance we have throw out the Julius Caesar's commentary on the Gaullic Wars since he describe things we know are not physically possible.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:31:16 PM
Yet our most common surnames come from Britain- Smith, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, etc.
Not mine! Mine is German. Half the people in this area have German names. Schmidt is more common then Smith.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:31:16 PM
Yet our most common surnames come from Britain- Smith, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, etc.
A lot of continental immigrants dropped their non-English surnames once they moved to America. And all those last names you just listed could be African-American which, as Oprah would say, is another show.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2014, 01:22:47 PM
As Sheilbh said, a lot of Scots-Irish are Appalachian or Southern and identify only as "American." German is the single most common ethnic origin in the US. At least white ethnic origin.
Which makes sense. There just wasn't a big enough population base in Scotland and Ireland to populate a huge portion of the 210 something Euro-Americans.
Are you talking about ethnic origin that people identify with or ethnic origin regardless of identification? I really can't tell.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 01:31:56 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 12:42:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2014, 12:41:38 PM
How can something be historically revisionist if there's no concept of history?
Err what?
Man, I warned you. The concept of "history" didn't exist back then, at least not our concept of history. You might as well talk about "neolithic science" If you throw out sources describing events that can't physically happen then you pretty much throw away 95% of the written documents from the time period. Even basic things like Sumerian kings lists. Hell you are going to throw out books that we know have a firm basis in historical fact, and occur much, much later. For instance we have throw out the Julius Caesar's commentary on the Gaullic Wars since he describe things we know are not physically possible.
Anyone can eat 100 whoppers.
TV/ethnography megathread.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2014, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2014, 01:15:52 PM
What? I'm pretty sure white Americans are predominantly Scotch-Irish.
As Sheilbh said, a lot of Scots-Irish are Appalachian or Southern and identify only as "American."
I think very few people identify as "Scots-Irish" or "Scotch-Irish". Usually it's just "Irish" or "Irish-American".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:31:16 PM
Yet our most common surnames come from Britain- Smith, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, etc.
Many German names got Anglicized over time, with a significant bump in the two World Wars. My last name and my mother's maiden name just happen to work both as English and German. So we were like pre-Anglicized or something.
Also like Razz we have tons of unmistakably German surnames in my area. I'd say well over 50% of the white population.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2014, 01:36:20 PM
A lot of continental immigrants dropped their non-English surnames once they moved to America. And all those last names you just listed could be African-American which, as Oprah would say, is another show.
The wiki page has a racial breakdown. 73% of the 2.3 million Smiths are white. And as Raz suggests, many immigrants didn't actually change their names.
German only comes out on top because British origins are splintered into several different groups and often much further in the past. And because German is "cooler" than English. Though not as cool as Irish.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 29, 2014, 01:41:54 PM
TV/ethnography megathread.
Hey, you wanted to talk smack about
The Black Stallion, so you get what you get.
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2014, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
Lots of information we have about events before, say, 1400 or so is like that--it all comes from one source or maybe two.
And nobody expects them to be literally historically accurate. For some reason literalist wingnuts make an exception for the Old Testament.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:52:07 PM
German only comes out on top because British origins are splintered into several different groups and often much further in the past.
The Germans were the first big batch of non-English speaking immigrants in the U.S. so yeah, they got a bit of a head start on the rest of the continental Europeans by a few generations.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:52:07 PM
And because German is "cooler" than English. Though not as cool as Irish.
I guess professional proficiency in modern general staff structure and combined arms doctrine isn't nearly as cool as being an angry drunk.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2014, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
Lots of information we have about events before, say, 1400 or so is like that--it all comes from one source or maybe two.
And nobody expects them to be literally historically accurate. For some reason literalist wingnuts make an exception for the Old Testament.
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
The Muppets ! :w00t: :wub:
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2014, 01:02:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
I don't think there is any actual evidence, the Bible aside, that there ever were any large population of Jews in Egypt, let alone that there were Jewish slaves etc.
It is best to think of the Exodus as pure mythology, perhaps tangentally inspired by some actual events - sort of like the medieval legendarium of King Arthur.
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
I'd be really surprised if there wasn't some weird grain of truth in the Exodus story.
Semitic people lived in Egypt in this period. It could have started as "hey remember how our great-great-great grandfather was a Hyksos? Well he wasn't a brutal conqueror-the Egyptians were mean to him." This is also a period when the Egyptians are starting to expand their control in to Canaan, so it might have started as a story of Semitic peoples fleeing Egyptian expansion in to the eastern wilderness and was then reinterpreted as foreshadowing the Babylonian exile.
Sure, but without more evidence it may prove impossible to determine what that grain is.
Also, don't get me wrong - I'm the last to insist that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. The actual historical information we do know is very, very spotty. That business about King David only being mentioned in one place indicates that (before this discovery, the 'absence of evidence' folks insisted that King David was also pure myth - that POV is now looking somewhat less likely, but is still around).
Another, similar example: the only unequivocal evidence for the existance of Pontius Pilate is a single inscription, discovered in 1961, dedicating a provincial ampetheatre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate
Thus, a high official of the Roman Empire (both relatively recent, no doubt a generator of tons of official documents during his lifetime, and famous from the Biblical account) is almost totally unknown - yet did exist.
I saw the Tel Dan Stele when it was loaned to the Met. :)
Historians are strongly opposed to quantifying their uncertainties.
lol, the purity of the TV/Movies Megathread must be maintained. :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2014, 03:03:52 PM
I saw the Tel Dan Stele when it was loaned to the Met. :)
I saw the Remington Steele. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 03:33:36 PM
lol, the purity of the TV/Movies Megathread must be maintained. :ph34r:
That's right, pal; Europeans want to enjoy their favorite pastimes of ethnicity fetishism and religion bashing, they can do it without fucking up Ide's movie reviews.
I give this thread a B+
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2014, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:52:07 PM
And because German is "cooler" than English. Though not as cool as Irish.
I guess professional proficiency in modern general staff structure and combined arms doctrine isn't nearly as cool as being an angry drunk.
Also it seems that Eyetalian is even cooler than Irish. Do something with that.
Yo Seedy, pray tell how does one fuck up Ide's movie reviews. Pretty sure he does it all on his own.
On the topic of name changes, a 1948 article of from a Jewish journalist in Manhattan who changed his name to something less obviously Jewish. It's long, so I only post parts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1948/02/i-changed-my-name/306252/?single_page=true
QuoteToward July of 1945 my kid brother's V-mail began coming home scrawled all over with odd pseudonyms. If I knew David, he was after something—just what, it wasn't impossible to guess, even before the final letter that rounded out his campaign. He wanted to change his name.
We are Jews, and our name was forthrightly Jewish. As his letter gingerly put it, the decision to take a new name was related to a taste for travel he had picked up in the Air Force. He had seen New Orleans, the Rockies, the Pacific, Manila; he wanted to see more after the war, and now he sought this means of assuring pleasant globe-trotting.
I think I knocked him out of his cockpit when I wrote that the step he contemplated had been on my mind a good while, and that it appeared advantageous from most angles. Somehow, halfway around the world, and busy with a B-29, he had arrived at my own well-matured conclusion as to one sine qua non of the good life in the twentieth century.
When David came home we got out our Manhattan phone directory, pored through the section of names with our initial, and compiled a list of three hundred choice surnames. When it came to making a decision, when we uttered those unfamiliar syllables aloud after our own given names, the project faltered; mutual embarrassment turned us cold. Without our old name we felt as anonymous as a couple of blades of grass.
But at last, having winnowed our sizable list, testing and rejecting, we settled on a name both neutral and euphonious. It might be Protestant or Catholic, it might be French, English, American. It might be anything. Crusaders had borne our name; street sweepers no doubt still do.
Good enough. The less your name says, the louder your actions speak. We hoped ours would do us credit.
Our idea was to find a name soothing to the greatest possible number of preconceptions and prejudices we were likely to meet. Our choice, we had agreed, was not to be pure Anglo-Saxon (although that's such a marketable strain) because we are both dark, resembling our father rather than our mother, a blue-eyed blonde. No telling what shade our children might decide to assume. So, clasping hands in enthusiasm over our own shrewdness, we steered clear of a number of British pitfalls.
Then we paid a lawyer (funny how you always pay for what the court of justice decides is yours by right) and became legal owners of the name of our choice. Incidentally—a tip for careful shoppers—the fee was about the same for both as it would have been for one. Entire families may enjoy this wholesale arrangement.
The required thirty days passed. We put a fine bright new name plate under our letter box and went out curiously into a world that had now and then turned a suspiciously stony face to our effort. Immediate results were gratifying. For those who hesitate, the answer to "Can I get away with it?" is "You'd be surprised." In my case, though I'm dark, I got the benefit of the doubt. Events showed that most Christians accepted me as just another guy—extended their cordiality without misgivings or reservations.
The right name, I congratulated myself, is a great buy at only sixty dollars.
Later I found that not everybody was fooled, that a small, militant minority penetrated my bunion disguise and were not averse to showing it; but on various counts these were mostly obnoxious birds anyway, with whom it would have been small thrill to deal—not the impressive people in my field, which happens to be journalism. Make things smooth and comfortable for the latter, and they don't give your origins a second thought.
It was the more bigoted who were apt to spot me. Seemingly they nourish a psychological set to which large portions of their waking time are dedicated: eternal, nervous separation of sheep from goats. Such specialists appear condemned to an unsleeping qui vine, like Argus. Even among the specialists, however, there were many who took me, and my sixty-dollar name into blood brotherhood, confiding how the continued existence of Jews (and/or Negroes, Italians, etc., etc.) added considerably to their burdens. Well, I didn't have to live, with them. I just wanted to fool them into the impression that I was human, and I was succeeding.
But while I went around aglow at having joined the human race, fire and brimstone were storing up for me in an unexpected quarter. It was my friends calling me a coward and deserter—literally, with just not quite enough humor to make it casual—that wiped the grin off my face. Surely there was nothing cowardly about invading what might reasonably be set down as hostile territory? But my accusers were drawing on centuries of stored-up polemic; I was groping an uncharted way to new ground.
Weeks went by before the vague complex of annoyance, logic, and intuition that had been my motivation settled into words. Then my muttering friends found themselves pinned by the lapels and flailed with my rationale of name-changing.
Those very friends who decried my change of name are in the main agnostics; the supernatural has long since departed from their world. Yes, they do sometimes attend services. To worship? The idea would embarrass them. And they were honestly angry with me. Why? What made their eyeteeth show?
I think I know. They have reacted passionately to injustice. They feel passionately that as an Irishman may have his reel, his green, his St. Patrick's Day parade, as each national group in America is entitled to its history, costumes, dishes, songs, colors, so Jews as a matter of simple justice have the right to their traditions. And they will in self-respect defend that right, to the last drop of blood. I am determined to keep my blood, every drop, for more personal ends.
[...]
So far I have glossed over the experience of my younger brother, who was the one to set our experiment in motion. David's story is the story of a bit of cartilage. Now and then my brother comes up against someone so keen and infallible that by looking at the tip of David's nose he recognizes the disguised pawnbroker. My brother may invest still further in his own humanity. He may decide to pay a surgeon to remove enough of that tiny but fatal cartilage to haul him up out of the pawnbroker race—washed sinless in the modern equivalent of baptism of the heathen—up to the shining precincts of individuality, honor, good breeding, ability, personality, talent, and ethics. We don't know—it's a question of percentages; and each month the offending cartilage loses some of its treacherous power. It may stay.
[...]
:mad:
Three pages and no-ones mentioned the really big issue with the film.
I studied the trailer several times and I could swear that some of the riders can be seen using stirrups!
:P
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2014, 03:53:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2014, 02:05:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 29, 2014, 01:52:07 PM
And because German is "cooler" than English. Though not as cool as Irish.
I guess professional proficiency in modern general staff structure and combined arms doctrine isn't nearly as cool as being an angry drunk.
Also it seems that Eyetalian is even cooler than Irish. Do something with that.
They do "Jersey Shore" better. You think anybody would watch "Jersey Shore: County Cork"?
Who the fuck uses V-mail? Except CdM.
MAH RIDLEY SCOTT CRITICISM.
Cast into a religious faggotry thread. :cry:
I sort of liked the film. It was long and a bit plodding, but I think it took an interesting angle re: the whole god thing. Exodus' god comes across as a vengeful unrestrained child punishing Egyptians far more than what's reasonable, tainting what is a just cause (the liberation of an enslaved nation). I thought it was a commentary on the whole mess currently going on that neck of the woods, and a valid artistic approach.
Or maybe it's just my personal perception of the whole Biblical episode coloring my interpretation of the flick. I always thought god was a bit of a git for hurting so many innocent Egyptians for the crimes of their ruling class.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2014, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: dps on December 29, 2014, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 12:10:54 PM
It is only with the rise of the Israelite kingdom that there is anything approaching history. Even then, the actual amout of "hard" information we really possess is ludicrously slight - until a couple of decades ago, there was not one single non-Biblical mention of King David. Now there is one - a mention of the "House of David" from the reign of the son of King Ahab (found on a broken stele celebrating a victory over said king).
Anything alleged to occur prior to that is not really "history" at all - it is legend and myth. (Much of what is alleged to occur after that is of course also legend and myth, but increasingly verges on the historical - or at least, historical facts are mingled with the legendary).
Lots of information we have about events before, say, 1400 or so is like that--it all comes from one source or maybe two.
And nobody expects them to be literally historically accurate. For some reason literalist wingnuts make an exception for the Old Testament.
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
I dont think you understood my point.
I am certain I dont understand the point you are making.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 29, 2014, 10:13:11 PM
I dont think you understood my point.
I am certain I dont understand the point you are making.
What part tripped you up?
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 02:52:25 PM
Sure, but without more evidence it may prove impossible to determine what that grain is.
Also, don't get me wrong - I'm the last to insist that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. The actual historical information we do know is very, very spotty. That business about King David only being mentioned in one place indicates that (before this discovery, the 'absence of evidence' folks insisted that King David was also pure myth - that POV is now looking somewhat less likely, but is still around).
Another, similar example: the only unequivocal evidence for the existance of Pontius Pilate is a single inscription, discovered in 1961, dedicating a provincial ampetheatre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate
Thus, a high official of the Roman Empire (both relatively recent, no doubt a generator of tons of official documents during his lifetime, and famous from the Biblical account) is almost totally unknown - yet did exist.
It is interesting what you say about King David. As you know, I got back recently from Israel. While there, I visited the archeological site near Silwan from the first temple period that is billed as "the city of David". The tour started with a movie that credited the Bible stories being the guide for the excavations and the tour was very heavy on pointing out how the excavations matched up with Bible passages.
My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
If you say so. Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu. Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
If you say so. Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu. Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.
Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.
Yep. The old idea that all those myths are all made up is a 19th century idea that does not seem to hold water. It was just a reaction that went from 'everything literally happened' to 'it was entirely all made up'. But it seems pretty clear that there was some historical memory in there. Also the point of religious texts is not to be history books, they can be a historical source just like any ancient document though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
If you say so. Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu. Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.
Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.
Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have. Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:57:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
If you say so. Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu. Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.
Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.
Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have. Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...
There is no debates on Egyptian pharaohs or whether Spartacus was a real person. It's simply accepted by most people. And it's accepted by the enlightened people who love to bully other about believing in "Sky fairies" or argue that there is no proof that Jesus existed. Their celebrated skepticism has a rather enormous blind spot for the majority of human history. It's a mindset I find quite annoying. It's not just layman. There are scholars who argue that there once was a King of Uruk named Gilgamesh, despite the only accounts of a such a person are depict obviously impossible events. I don't know of any scholars that claim there was no slave named Spartacus who led an slave uprising despite the fact that the only accounts of him were written over 50 years after he was dead and contradict each other.
The Revalations show on History?
Hilarious
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.
Yep. The old idea that all those myths are all made up is a 19th century idea that does not seem to hold water.
And here I thought Israel Finkelstein wrote in the later part of the 20th century and the beginning of this century. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 11:25:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:57:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
If you say so. Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu. Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.
Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.
Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have. Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...
There is no debates on Egyptian pharaohs or whether Spartacus was a real person. It's simply accepted by most people. And it's accepted by the enlightened people who love to bully other about believing in "Sky fairies" or argue that there is no proof that Jesus existed. Their celebrated skepticism has a rather enormous blind spot for the majority of human history. It's a mindset I find quite annoying. It's not just layman. There are scholars who argue that there once was a King of Uruk named Gilgamesh, despite the only accounts of a such a person are depict obviously impossible events. I don't know of any scholars that claim there was no slave named Spartacus who led an slave uprising despite the fact that the only accounts of him were written over 50 years after he was dead and contradict each other.
How often do Spartacus and Gilgamesh come up in everyday conversation? And which scholars assert that there was no historical Jesus?
What is your point about the first question? Because it doesn't come up very often it's okay not to look critically at it? If one takes the critical view of one part of history one should take a critical view of all it. And here's a small list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Notable_proponents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Notable_proponents) Go knock yourself out.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 12:25:01 AM
What is your point about the first question?
I don't see the point of it either, but it seems similar to Valmy's statement in post #77.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 29, 2014, 02:52:25 PM
Sure, but without more evidence it may prove impossible to determine what that grain is.
Also, don't get me wrong - I'm the last to insist that absence of evidence = evidence of absence. The actual historical information we do know is very, very spotty. That business about King David only being mentioned in one place indicates that (before this discovery, the 'absence of evidence' folks insisted that King David was also pure myth - that POV is now looking somewhat less likely, but is still around).
Another, similar example: the only unequivocal evidence for the existance of Pontius Pilate is a single inscription, discovered in 1961, dedicating a provincial ampetheatre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate
Thus, a high official of the Roman Empire (both relatively recent, no doubt a generator of tons of official documents during his lifetime, and famous from the Biblical account) is almost totally unknown - yet did exist.
It is interesting what you say about King David. As you know, I got back recently from Israel. While there, I visited the archeological site near Silwan from the first temple period that is billed as "the city of David". The tour started with a movie that credited the Bible stories being the guide for the excavations and the tour was very heavy on pointing out how the excavations matched up with Bible passages.
My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.
I agree that it starts at pure myth and shades into what amounts to history (or, as you say, as good as any other source - that is, lacking any notion of historical objectivity, like pretty well any other source, but referring to real events that can be independently checked).
The point of live debate is when the inflection-point was reached between 'more or less myth' and 'more or less history'. The general consensus nowadays is that it was well after the reign of David and Solomon. David was, up until two decades ago, more or less consigned wholly to mythology. Now, there is at least some evidence a historical David existed, but it is very, very thin. There is, as of yet, no firm consensus that any particular buildings or remains can be reliably traced to David's reign. It is certain that nothing like the glorious Empire of David and Solomon as described in the Bible ever existed - the best guess, so far, is that David was indeed a "king" of a small and relatively insignificant kingdom, and that his memory was magnified by successors (or the priestly class criticising those successors) for purposes of either enhancing legitimacy, or of pointing out falls from previous glory.
In short, if a historical David existed (and it is looking more likely now that he did), his exploits, and that of his successor Solomon, were greatly mythologized in making them out to be more powerful, wealthy, and influential than they likely were.
Also, to define terms: "more or less myth" does not mean "did not happen". It means that there is no way to determine whether it happened or not, other than evidence internal to the story itself: one can discard the obviously supernatural elements, but what you are left with is stuff than cannot be proved or disproved - what you will be talking about is probabilities, and a certain amount of arguing from absence of evidence.
Take for example the Exodus story. Eliminate the supernatural and you are left with an account of a mass escape of a class of slaves from Egypt. The strikes against this theory are - the physical difficulty of a mass of slaves living for any length of time in the desert (this can be overcome by posing that the numbers of slaves escaped in the Bible were greatly exaggerated), the lack of any contemporary mention of a mass slave escape (this can be overcome by noting that the historical record of Egypt is very spotty - for large stretches we don't have more than a list of kings), and the fact that ancient Egypt did not, as far as we know, use a large class of slaves for labour to build things, preferring to conscript peasants for corvee labour instead (this can be overcome by posing that the enslavement of Hebrews was a special case).
Ultimately, there is simply no way of knowing whether the story is literally true in some sense (that is, has a kernel of truth that was mythologized by adding supernatural elements and greatly exaggerated numbers), or was simply a myth pure and simple - until some further evidence is uncovered.
Quote from: Martinus on December 29, 2014, 09:41:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
You do know that the Israelites were people who worshiped Mesopotamian deities well before the captivity right? I think you should stop right now, before you make a fool of yourself.
Are you saying you believe that Exodus was actually written by Moses and it is a primary historical source? :lol:
I do.
Don't you?
Why does Hollywood insists in rewriting history?
This exodus version is the most liberal to date.
Don't date it. Duh.
Quote from: Siege on December 30, 2014, 10:28:59 AM
Why does Hollywood insists in rewriting history?
This exodus version is the most liberal to date.
Do you like The Ten Commandments, Siege? :)
I'm coveting my neighbor's wife's ass. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 11:25:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:57:42 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 29, 2014, 10:47:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 29, 2014, 02:07:26 PM
B.S. Lots and lots of stories are taken at face value. I don't know of any biblical literalistic who refuse to believe in say, Spartacus or the Pharaoh Sneferu. While lots of people will go on about "sky fairies" rave about "wingnuts" who believe in parts of the bible but, for some reason are incapable or are unwilling to use that same skepticism on other parts history.
If you say so. Seems to me lots of historical debate exists about basically everything, to the extent that there are people spending their careers studying Sneferu. Further I fail to see the proof that the scholars studying ancient history are the same people going on about "wingnuts" and "sky fairies" so that seems like a completely bizarre criticism to level at them.
Think he's talking about regular folks, particular on the internet, not the actual scholars.
Ah well I have not seen any internet debates about Egyptian Pharoahs so I have no idea what level of skepticism they might have. Religious discussions come up about every 5 seconds so...
There is no debates on Egyptian pharaohs or whether Spartacus was a real person. It's simply accepted by most people. And it's accepted by the enlightened people who love to bully other about believing in "Sky fairies" or argue that there is no proof that Jesus existed. Their celebrated skepticism has a rather enormous blind spot for the majority of human history. It's a mindset I find quite annoying. It's not just layman. There are scholars who argue that there once was a King of Uruk named Gilgamesh, despite the only accounts of a such a person are depict obviously impossible events. I don't know of any scholars that claim there was no slave named Spartacus who led an slave uprising despite the fact that the only accounts of him were written over 50 years after he was dead and contradict each other.
You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).
And I'm surprised there are people who did not hear about historians who claim Jesus never existed. America is really weird with its religious delusions.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:11:18 AM
And I'm surprised there are people who did not hear about historians who claim Jesus never existed. America is really weird with its religious delusions.
:huh:
I see only two people who mentioned Jesus before you and only one of those people questioned about that road regarding Jesus. How do you expand that to all of America?
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).
Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians". :lol: They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources. Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented". There are no primary sources. You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period. For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).
Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians". :lol: They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources. Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented". There are no primary sources. You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period. For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.
And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up. Despite what Marti seems to think, there are still huge holes in our historical knowledge of Classical Greece and Rome (though he is correct in saying that those times are much better documented than prior eras). Heck, there are events much later then Classical Rome that we have minimal documentation about.
Quote from: garbon on December 30, 2014, 11:21:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:11:18 AM
And I'm surprised there are people who did not hear about historians who claim Jesus never existed. America is really weird with its religious delusions.
:huh:
I see only two people who mentioned Jesus before you and only one of those people questioned about that road regarding Jesus. How do you expand that to all of America?
That's his thing. He's a chronic extrapolator.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).
Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians". :lol: They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources. Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented". There are no primary sources. You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period. For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.
And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up. Despite what Marti seems to think, there are still huge holes in our historical knowledge of Classical Greece and Rome (though he is correct in saying that those times are much better documented than prior eras). Heck, there are events much later then Classical Rome that we have minimal documentation about.
As noted above, Pontius Pilate - a much more significant figure in his own day than Jesus, bering the official in charge of an entire Roman province - has exactly
one contemporary non-Biblical bit of evidence for his existence: a stone dedicating an ampetheatre in Israel.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 01:19:01 PM
And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up.
They could have been right if they adjusted slightly and considered Homer a made up myth. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2014, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: Siege on December 30, 2014, 10:28:59 AM
Why does Hollywood insists in rewriting history?
This exodus version is the most liberal to date.
Do you like The Ten Commandments, Siege? :)
Of course. They are the base of everything I believe in
Oh, you mean the movie. I haven't seen it since I was a kid. I remember my grandpa bitching it had a Christian bent.
I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians". History isn't a science. It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method. "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question. It's not a question that science can answer. However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word. The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.
Marty, who likes to go on about "Sky fairies" and "Bronze age books", seems to hold to an idea that non-Biblical history of the time period is well recorded and scientific, which it is neither. His scrutiny is reserved only for that part of history this touch the Abrahamic faiths and thus creates a false dichotomy the "obviously mythical" and the "scientific historians". I have noticed that such a viewpoint is unhappily common.
Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2014, 09:49:56 AM
Also, to define terms: "more or less myth" does not mean "did not happen". It means that there is no way to determine whether it happened or not, other than evidence internal to the story itself: one can discard the obviously supernatural elements, but what you are left with is stuff than cannot be proved or disproved - what you will be talking about is probabilities, and a certain amount of arguing from absence of evidence.
Take for example the Exodus story. Eliminate the supernatural and you are left with an account of a mass escape of a class of slaves from Egypt. The strikes against this theory are - the physical difficulty of a mass of slaves living for any length of time in the desert (this can be overcome by posing that the numbers of slaves escaped in the Bible were greatly exaggerated), the lack of any contemporary mention of a mass slave escape (this can be overcome by noting that the historical record of Egypt is very spotty - for large stretches we don't have more than a list of kings), and the fact that ancient Egypt did not, as far as we know, use a large class of slaves for labour to build things, preferring to conscript peasants for corvee labour instead (this can be overcome by posing that the enslavement of Hebrews was a special case).
Ultimately, there is simply no way of knowing whether the story is literally true in some sense (that is, has a kernel of truth that was mythologized by adding supernatural elements and greatly exaggerated numbers), or was simply a myth pure and simple - until some further evidence is uncovered.
Indeed.
Those who argue that there isn't any real proof that Jesus existed are not, I don't think, arguing that he didn't exist. They are only arguing that there are no cooroborative accounts of his existence, therefore we should take the account we do have with a rather healthy grain of salt, since it rather clearly has a very specific agenda associated with it beyond an interest in "history".
I don't think anyone really believes that the entire Jesus story was simply made up from nothing - that seems rather unlikely. Rather what IS likely is that Jesus, like David, existed on some fashion or another, and the myth of Jesus was created in order to advance an agenda long after he was gone. There is nothing inherently wrong about that, it is rather common after all, but at the same time we should not just assume that what the bible says about Jesus is factual. The bible itself is evidence (albeit not great evidence) that there was SOME dude who existed. Most contemporary history however notes that Jewish rebels were not entirely uncommon at the time, and one theory is that Jesus was just one of several Jewish "saviors" who led or were used by rebel groups.
At the end of the day, there simply isn't any real evidence to draw any kind of firm conclusions about the particulars. The only details we have are sourced by a religious text that clearly was likely never even intended to be particularly factual.
Comparing Jesus to Spartacus is an interesting comparison. There is, of course, plenty of historical evidence that a former galdiator led one of the slave revolts during the Third Servile War. Those accounts contradict one another in some details. Does that mean we should simply throw them all out and conclude that he was made up? Of course not - that would be stupid. Instead we see what they do agree on, what "fits" with other known accounts of the context of the time (for example, we do know that slave revolts were happening, hence it is not much of a stretch to conclude that one of their leaders was this ex-galdiator - had we noted that there were no contemporary accounts of a war of servile insurrection at that time, then stories of a slave leader of such a rebellion would be met with a bit more skepticism).
This is where the Jesus story gets in trouble - there are accounts that ought to have been mentioned elsewhere had they been factual. If Herod had really killed hundreds of newborn children, for example, we would expect to see some mention of that elsewhere. The lack of such a mention makes that part of the story rather suspect. Doesn't mean Jesus never existed though.
I don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".
Bottom line. Homosexuals suck.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 02:12:40 PM
I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians". History isn't a science. It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method. "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question. It's not a question that science can answer. However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word. The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.
History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.
I got science, dog. Me knows ballistics.
I have always found it interesting that Europeans consistently display bigger hang-ups over religion than the America they accuse of having such hang-ups over religion.
Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).
Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians". :lol: They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources. Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented". There are no primary sources. You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period. For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.
And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up. Despite what Marti seems to think, there are still huge holes in our historical knowledge of Classical Greece and Rome (though he is correct in saying that those times are much better documented than prior eras). Heck, there are events much later then Classical Rome that we have minimal documentation about.
As noted above, Pontius Pilate - a much more significant figure in his own day than Jesus, bering the official in charge of an entire Roman province - has exactly one contemporary non-Biblical bit of evidence for his existence: a stone dedicating an ampetheatre in Israel.
This is a good example of how we evaluate history.
There is little evidence that Pilate existed. Should historians then conclude that he did not, and that biblical accounts of him are false?
I don't think so - there is evidence he existed. The bible says he existed. The bible is a relatively poor source of historical information, but given the lack of *0ther* contradicting sources, and given that there is no reason for the bible to actually make him up, it is rather reasonable to tentatively conclude that there was some guy who was in charge of the relevant province around that time with that name, and he likely was involved in whatever trial and execution the Jesus story was based on. Simply because there isn't much reason to believe that the people who wrote the bible would make it up.
History is about picking the "best" solution, the most likely story out of the available evidence. Sometimes there is no evidence at all, and we cannot say anything. Other times there is poor evidence, or evidence that is not backed up by other sources, so we are forced to make conclusions that we know are not well supported. That is fine, as long as we understand that just because two different stories are considered to be the most likely story, that doesn't mean they are both equally well supported.
I agree, Berkut. The historical existence of Jesus is irrelevant to the message he is ascribed. It's only fundies who insist that he is a historical figure - which obviously prompts anti-fundies to show that this is not as clear as they say.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 02:19:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2014, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2014, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 12:57:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 11:04:46 AM
You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).
Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians". :lol: They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources. Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented". There are no primary sources. You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period. For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.
And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up. Despite what Marti seems to think, there are still huge holes in our historical knowledge of Classical Greece and Rome (though he is correct in saying that those times are much better documented than prior eras). Heck, there are events much later then Classical Rome that we have minimal documentation about.
As noted above, Pontius Pilate - a much more significant figure in his own day than Jesus, bering the official in charge of an entire Roman province - has exactly one contemporary non-Biblical bit of evidence for his existence: a stone dedicating an ampetheatre in Israel.
This is a good example of how we evaluate history.
There is little evidence that Pilate existed. Should historians then conclude that he did not, and that biblical accounts of him are false?
I don't think so - there is evidence he existed. The bible says he existed. The bible is a relatively poor source of historical information, but given the lack of *0ther* contradicting sources, and given that there is no reason for the bible to actually make him up, it is rather reasonable to tentatively conclude that there was some guy who was in charge of the relevant province around that time with that name, and he likely was involved in whatever trial and execution the Jesus story was based on. Simply because there isn't much reason to believe that the people who wrote the bible would make it up.
History is about picking the "best" solution, the most likely story out of the available evidence. Sometimes there is no evidence at all, and we cannot say anything. Other times there is poor evidence, or evidence that is not backed up by other sources, so we are forced to make conclusions that we know are not well supported. That is fine, as long as we understand that just because two different stories are considered to be the most likely story, that doesn't mean they are both equally well supported.
True enough - I am of the opinion that the better view is that there was a real "historical Jesus", for a couple of reasons - having a religious reformer raise a ruckus in Jerusalem and be executed for it was hardly unusual for that time and place, and it makes more sense to me that the Biblical account be based on a real person, than made up out of nothing. When you remove the supernatural elements and the obvious myth-making, the basic story is not at all unlikely - religious reformer gathers a group of followers, goes to Jerusalem, makes a scene, gets executed.
That said, the account in the Bible is of course significantly mythologized - with different factions among Early Christians apparently manipulating the account to gain legitimacy for their own contemporary position (this can be seen in the fact that many different gospels were created, and some were expressly rejected from the Christian canon - most notably, the Gospel of Thomas).
Some of the mythology has a very obvious purpose - for example, it would not do to make the Roman authorities out to be villanous, so Pilate has to be more or less
forced into having Jesus executed against his inclinations (as if a Roman procounsel ever agonized over executing a trouble-making provincial religious nut. ;) ). In reality, if there was a historical Jesus, he was apparently not a really big deal - the Romans did not even bother to execute all his followers.
Quote from: Malthus on December 30, 2014, 02:36:53 PM
True enough - I am of the opinion that the better view is that there was a real "historical Jesus", for a couple of reasons - having a religious reformer raise a ruckus in Jerusalem and be executed for it was hardly unusual for that time and place, and it makes more sense to me that the Biblical account be based on a real person, than made up out of nothing. When you remove the supernatural elements and the obvious myth-making, the basic story is not at all unlikely - religious reformer gathers a group of followers, goes to Jerusalem, makes a scene, gets executed.
Indeed - and frankly that is a more likely, a more Occum friendly explanation, for the meta-story...ie, let's answer the question "Why does the bible exist as it does?" rather than the question "Did Jesus exist".
If we want to conclude that Jesus was entirely made up, then...why? Why make up the entire story out of whole cloth? Do we see other examples of where siginficant religious movements are completely made up? We don't...with the notable exception of Scientology, which is really one of those "exceptions that prove the rule" since it was *specifically* made up out of whole cloth almost as an excercise in seeing if it could be done.
Is it possible that there was no Jesus of any kind in any meaningful way? Certainly.
But that doesn't strike me as the most likely explanation for the historical fact of the existence of the bible around the time it was written, and the rise of the largest religious movement in human history.
Quote
That said, the account in the Bible is of course significantly mythologized - with different factions among Early Christians apparently manipulating the account to gain legitimacy for their own contemporary position (this can be seen in the fact that many different gospels were created, and some were expressly rejected from the Christian canon - most notably, the Gospel of Thomas).
Indeed.
The better comparison, IMO, is to compare the Jesus story to the Joseph Smith/Mormon story.
There is no question that the man existed. There isn't even any debate about it. Does that mean that since we know he existed, then it is even slightly more reasonable to conclude that he had magic glasses and was visited by an angel? Not at all - the two are entirely separate issues, and the answer to the one has no bearing on the other at all.
Now, what about the historical evidence for the existence of the Nephites, as described in the Book of Mormon? Should we accept that they existed, or how should we evaluate the likelihood that they existed?
Well, we look at our source materials. There is only one - the Book of Mormon. We *know* THAT book was written long after the Nephites supposedly existed, and was written by someone who had no way of knowing *other than* supernatural revelation. This is entirely different in that our only source of "evidence" is both
1) Completely lacking in any kind of historical rigor or credibility, and
2) The historical information we DO have from archeology and such do not support their existence in any way.
Does that mean we can be certainly they did NOT exist? Not really, but their existence has no support, and the single source of information we have is entirely non-credible both from the standpoint of their motivation, but also from the standpoint that we know that the people who wrote it could not possibly have known anything about the time they were writing about.
Those who wrote about Jesus certainly share the credibility problem, in that we know that the biblical writers had an agenda. And they have part of the "knowledge" problem as well, in that they were mostly writing about something that they could not have witnessed. However, they were not so removed from their subject that their information is clearly completely made up - there would be oral accounts, and an already burgeoning Jesus mythology passed on through oral tradition for them to base their own written story on, and it is entirely reasonable for us to presume that is exactly what was happening.
Are we sure? Not at all. If someone invented a perfect way of finding the truth and we found out that the entire story was made up the way the Nephites were made up, that would not come as a stunning revelation to historians, I don't think. The historical existence of Jesus is pretty established, but still just tentatively so, since the data we have to work with is so limited. Any conclusion will necessarily be (relatively) tentative.
Quote
Some of the mythology has a very obvious purpose - for example, it would not do to make the Roman authorities out to be villanous, so Pilate has to be more or less forced into having Jesus executed against his inclinations (as if a Roman procounsel ever agonized over executing a trouble-making provincial religious nut. ;) ). In reality, if there was a historical Jesus, he was apparently not a really big deal - the Romans did not even bother to execute all his followers.
The book by that Muslim guy "Zealot" argues that Jesus existed, but he was simply one of many "messiah" type Jewish rebels. An interesting perspective certainly, and seems as plausible as many explanations.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 12:57:05 PMUh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians". :lol: They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources. Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented". There are no primary sources. You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period. For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.
I think you're mixing things up here though.
There was a difference between a religious and a historical text just like there was a difference between poetry and prose. They're different forms with different approaches and that's something that's always been true. Even a religious author attempting to write a historical text will approach it differently than writing a religious text.
However what was known of the past was often myths rather than recorded facts and what was known of the future certainly was. So historical writers in different periods incorporate religious ideas of the past and the present. That doesn't mean that there's no way of distinguishing between the two or that the ancient or non-Western world was just a giant blancmange of religion, myth and history.
The Gospel writers were, for the most part, not writing historical texts, similarly neither were the Pentateuch writers. Livy and Sima Qian and Plutarch wer writing history. While both of those categories may have lots in common the intention and approach is different and the way we should approach the text is also different.
QuoteRather what IS likely is that Jesus, like David, existed on some fashion or another, and the myth of Jesus was created in order to advance an agenda long after he was gone.
Not that long. From what I've read most estimates have the Gospels all composed by the end of the first century. They probably weren't eye-witness accounts, but they're indicative of a wider oral tradition.
A useful comparison is Buddha who died around 500 years before the first texts that we have which are his discourses. But from what I know it's generally accepted that Buddha existed as a historical figure who preached and founded a monastic order. Again those texts often show similarities even though they're in different languages and different geographical areas which suggests there was a substantial shared oral heritage of Buddha's sayings.
Obviously it's from a profoundly Catholic point of view but I think Pope Benedict's biography of Jesus is really worth reading if you ever get the chance. He writes quite interestingly on the 'historical' Christ.
QuoteI don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".
Surely the fundy atheists, no?
QuoteThat said, the account in the Bible is of course significantly mythologized - with different factions among Early Christians apparently manipulating the account to gain legitimacy for their own contemporary position (this can be seen in the fact that many different gospels were created, and some were expressly rejected from the Christian canon - most notably, the Gospel of Thomas).
Such as the massacre of the innocents which fulfils prophecy so could well have been added.
I do not think the distinction between "religious" and "secular" existed at the time nor was history as written by Romans (or really anyone). The historical method had yet to be devised.
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 02:16:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 02:12:40 PM
I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians". History isn't a science. It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method. "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question. It's not a question that science can answer. However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word. The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.
History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.
Only if you are a Marxist and you like to be wrong Now history can be augmented by science, for instance with archeology, but that doesn't make history a science.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
QuoteI don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".
Surely the fundy atheists, no?
Not that I've seen - the "fundy atheist" position in regards to a historical Jesus is largely a strawman. I don't actually know any atheists who hold the position that Jesus never existed in the absolute manner the fundies claim.
The position that sparks the entire debate is to note that there isn't much historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the bible, and noting the shortcomings of the bible in the manner that scholars have and in the manner we have discussed as regards to it's use as a historical source. This inevitably results in the fundies or the anti-atheists to start going off about how atheists don't believe Jesus ever existed at all.
It is an easy shift, but a dishonest one.
I though what sparked this all was Marty's bit about Americans never having heard of historians claiming Jesus never existed. Sure there are those who do, but it's a fringe position. The general consensus is that there was a historical Christ.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 02:16:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 02:12:40 PM
I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians". History isn't a science. It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method. "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question. It's not a question that science can answer. However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word. The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.
History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.
Only if you are a Marxist and you like to be wrong Now history can be augmented by science, for instance with archeology, but that doesn't make history a science.
Something tells me I know more about science than you do. Contemplate this on the tree of whoa!
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 03:35:55 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
QuoteI don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".
Surely the fundy atheists, no?
Not that I've seen - the "fundy atheist" position in regards to a historical Jesus is largely a strawman. I don't actually know any atheists who hold the position that Jesus never existed in the absolute manner the fundies claim.
The position that sparks the entire debate is to note that there isn't much historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the bible, and noting the shortcomings of the bible in the manner that scholars have and in the manner we have discussed as regards to it's use as a historical source. This inevitably results in the fundies or the anti-atheists to start going off about how atheists don't believe Jesus ever existed at all.
It is an easy shift, but a dishonest one.
You do know that Marty is posting in this thread right? Also I posted a whole list of scholars that claim Jesus was entirely mythical, often from pagan sources. We only have one Fundie here, and he doesn't believe in Jesus.
The general consensus amongst historians, I think, is that there was certainly someone alive who inspired the Christ story, but that the details of his life and death are basically unknown almost completely.
This is NOT saying that Jesus did not exist...but it is putting the "historical Jesus" in a context that he becomes largely useless to Christians as a *historical* figure. The range of possibilities is so great as to the details around him that there is no utility to any religious arguments around what he did or did not do in a historical context.
This is pretty damning to fundy Christians who are wont to trot out things like "Lunatic, Liar, or Son of God" as actual arguments with atheists. So atheists point out the actual historical consensus that it is extremely unlikely that any human being that resembles the biblical Jesus existing in the fashion the bible describes. After all, the historical range of possibilities is very large, so the odds that the bible got more than the cursory details right are slim, so in that fashion one can say that the biblical Jesus probably never existed.
That *someone* existed that inspired the Jesus story is rather likely, IMO. That person could have been a married, violent political radical who paid lip service to religion, for example. That is just as likely as the peaceful biblical Jesus. I think that reflects the historical consensus - not that he was anything in particular, but just that any particular description of the details is almost unknowable.
That is a pretty nuanced viewpoint compared to "Jesus never existed!". But of course that his how the debate is portrayed. Of course, I would also argue that that consensus is, for all practical religious purposes, nearly identical to the claim that he never really existed, since if you accept that view, you cannot give any credence that matters to the fundamentalist views of Christ. Which is, of course, what really pisses them off.
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 03:52:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 30, 2014, 02:16:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2014, 02:12:40 PM
I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians". History isn't a science. It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method. "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question. It's not a question that science can answer. However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word. The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.
History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.
Only if you are a Marxist and you like to be wrong Now history can be augmented by science, for instance with archeology, but that doesn't make history a science.
Something tells me I know more about science than you do. Contemplate this on the tree of whoa!
Well, that seems like a valid scientific question. Maybe you should go work on it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 03:40:43 PM
I though what sparked this all was Marty's bit about Americans never having heard of historians claiming Jesus never existed. Sure there are those who do, but it's a fringe position. The general consensus is that there was a historical Christ.
The link Raz posted also quoted historians that claim that Jesus may be an amalgam of a number of historical figures, or that while a Jesus-like figure existed, a lot of writings about him are fictional. I think the latter two positions are not that fringe.
Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
The general consensus amongst historians, I think, is that there was certainly someone alive who inspired the Christ story, but that the details of his life and death are basically unknown almost completely.
This is NOT saying that Jesus did not exist...but it is putting the "historical Jesus" in a context that he becomes largely useless to Christians as a *historical* figure. The range of possibilities is so great as to the details around him that there is no utility to any religious arguments around what he did or did not do in a historical context.
This is pretty damning to fundy Christians who are wont to trot out things like "Lunatic, Liar, or Son of God" as actual arguments with atheists. So atheists point out the actual historical consensus that it is extremely unlikely that any human being that resembles the biblical Jesus existing in the fashion the bible describes. After all, the historical range of possibilities is very large, so the odds that the bible got more than the cursory details right are slim, so in that fashion one can say that the biblical Jesus probably never existed.
That *someone* existed that inspired the Jesus story is rather likely, IMO. That person could have been a married, violent political radical who paid lip service to religion, for example. That is just as likely as the peaceful biblical Jesus. I think that reflects the historical consensus - not that he was anything in particular, but just that any particular description of the details is almost unknowable.
That is a pretty nuanced viewpoint compared to "Jesus never existed!". But of course that his how the debate is portrayed. Of course, I would also argue that that consensus is, for all practical religious purposes, nearly identical to the claim that he never really existed, since if you accept that view, you cannot give any credence that matters to the fundamentalist views of Christ. Which is, of course, what really pisses them off.
Yes, this is my understanding of the consensus as well.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?
Nope. I claim it is a reasonably accepted consensus among scholars with no religious agenda that either (a) a number of historical figures inspired Jesus, and/or (b) some sort of political activist existed but he may have had little in common with details of biblical Jesus's life (the latter being largely inspired by Middle-Eastern mythology of numerous "sons of Gods").
Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.
I am pleased, in the spirit of Christmas, to reconcile us all to the same position.
:P
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:02:08 PM
Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.
Most parables used in metaphorical narrative usually are.
Still doesn't change the fact that you're going to burn in hellfire for all eternity. Not for all the cock, but for being a lawyer. :P
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 04:03:11 PM
I am pleased, in the spirit of Christmas, to reconcile us all to the same position.
:P
What an odd question to ask Marty. You keep talking about "fundies" here. Who exactly are you talking about?
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
But that doesn't strike me as the most likely explanation for the historical fact of the existence of the bible around the time it was written, and the rise of the largest religious movement in human history.
The Bible wasnt aorund at the time "it was written". The Bible as we now know it was put together from selected pieces written over a long period of time and which were selected even later to be included in the book we now call the Bible. Also, even amongst the books that were selected it is difficult for us to know with any certainty whether the version and translations we now have are accurate although scholars like Erhman have done their best to try to piece together what may be the most accurate versions by trying to filture out all the forgeries and poor translations which occurred over time.
What is more interesting imo are the pieces that didnt make the cut and were either discarded and lost to time or destroyed. We probably will never fully know what was written at the time. Only what made it through the political and religious battles that separate us from the time of the original writings.
As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed. At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 04:03:11 PM
I am pleased, in the spirit of Christmas, to reconcile us all to the same position.
:P
:cheers:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 04:06:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:02:08 PM
Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.
Most parables used in metaphorical narrative usually are.
Still doesn't change the fact that you're going to burn in hellfire for all eternity. Not for all the cock, but for being a lawyer. :P
I won't. I am holding out for that death bed conversion. :pope:
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?
Do scholars believe there was a human being who "inspired" the biblical New Testament story? I doubt any scholars really take a position on it since there is no evidence one way or another. The more interesting question that many scholars study is the mythological roots of the New Testament story. One doesnt really need an actual human being to create a myth.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:02:08 PMNope. I claim it is a reasonably accepted consensus among scholars with no religious agenda that either (a) a number of historical figures inspired Jesus, and/or (b) some sort of political activist existed but he may have had little in common with details of biblical Jesus's life (the latter being largely inspired by Middle-Eastern mythology of numerous "sons of Gods").
Edit: Of course, I am not talking about clearly fantastic elements of biblical Jesus's life, as these are clearly unhistorical.
I don't think that is the consensus at all. I mean (a) sounds like a nineteenth century controversialist.
From what I've read the general scholarly consensus is that there was a figure who was baptised by John the Baptist (there's more other sources on him than Christ), who did preach and possibly had issues with the Temple and was crucified. The rest of the Biblical account is rather questionable but those bare facts are broadly agreed on by all modern Ancient Historians I've read.
Beyond that there's not much that can be agreed from a historical perspective. But that doesn't actually matter because from a historical perspective the real Christ doesn't matter what matters is the cult he inspired.
Edit: And of course it's worth going back to Mark which is the oldest Gospel. The version that scholars now believe is the oldest starts with Jesus as a man getting baptised by John. Then there's preaching and calling disciples and the odd miracle - feeding the five thousand. It ends with crucifixion and an empty tomb, but not resurrection.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed. At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.
Slaves and women.
The distinction saddens me. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2014, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 03:59:49 PM
Marty, do you claim that it is reasonably accepted among scholars that the human being who inspired the biblical New Testament story never existed at all?
Do scholars believe there was a human being who "inspired" the biblical New Testament story? I doubt any scholars really take a position on it since there is no evidence one way or another. The more interesting question that many scholars study is the mythological roots of the New Testament story. One doesnt really need an actual human being to create a myth.
I remember when you made similar claims used "The Pagan Christ" by Tom Harpur to back them up. I thought you had backed off that long ago when I showed some the more... peculiar claims that Harpur made, such as Chirst's name appearing in Ancient Egyptian over 18,000 years ago.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:10:00 PM
I am holding out for that death bed conversion. :pope:
Disbarment?
Quote from: Siege on December 30, 2014, 02:15:02 PM
Bottom line. Homosexuals suck.
Well yes, that is one thing that we do with penises. :huh:
Sorry "do to"
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:10:00 PM
I won't. I am holding out for that death bed conversion. :pope:
I might start going to some Anglo-Catholic churches. Mainly because they're the gayest places in London :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 04:30:20 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:10:00 PM
I am holding out for that death bed conversion. :pope:
Disbarment?
Besides, I'm a M&A lawyer. This should be the least sinful, as I am just representing one company against another in negotiations - imho, labour, antitrust, regulatory or litigation lawyers are capable of much more evil. ;)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 04:46:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 04:10:00 PM
I won't. I am holding out for that death bed conversion. :pope:
I might start going to some Anglo-Catholic churches. Mainly because they're the gayest places in London :lol:
Look out for those with Polish priests, though. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 05:16:58 PM
Look out for those with Polish priests, though. :P
Anglo-Catholic is very high Church of England - all smells and bells. They make Pope Benedict look like a dour Quaker.
In terms of London's Catholic Churches Poles are pretty moderate compared to Nigerian preaching :lol:
Edit: Also Anglo-Catholic parishes tend to have very gay vicars to go with their very gay congregations. Historically they used to be fiercely opposed to women priests, now they're rather more laid back about everything.
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 05:16:28 PM
Besides, I'm a M&A lawyer. This should be the least sinful, as I am just representing one company against another in negotiations - imho, labour, antitrust, regulatory or litigation lawyers are capable of much more evil. ;)
You gotta be shitting me.
Your "negotiations" are lives and careers destroyed for profit. Oh yeah, you're burning in hell.
The answer to the problem with a lack of sources for events of a millennium and more gone:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29
:p
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2014, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 05:16:28 PM
Besides, I'm a M&A lawyer. This should be the least sinful, as I am just representing one company against another in negotiations - imho, labour, antitrust, regulatory or litigation lawyers are capable of much more evil. ;)
You gotta be shitting me.
Your "negotiations" are lives and careers destroyed for profit. Oh yeah, you're burning in hell.
I just help one bunch of crooks not to be swindled by another. I don't participate in whatever they do to a company once they buy it. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on December 30, 2014, 05:52:27 PM
I just help one bunch of crooks not to be swindled by another. I don't participate in whatever they do to a company once they buy it. ;)
Yeah...Nazi collaborators sorta thought that way, too.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
But that doesn't strike me as the most likely explanation for the historical fact of the existence of the bible around the time it was written, and the rise of the largest religious movement in human history.
The Bible wasnt aorund at the time "it was written". The Bible as we now know it was put together from selected pieces written over a long period of time and which were selected even later to be included in the book we now call the Bible. Also, even amongst the books that were selected it is difficult for us to know with any certainty whether the version and translations we now have are accurate although scholars like Erhman have done their best to try to piece together what may be the most accurate versions by trying to filture out all the forgeries and poor translations which occurred over time.
What is more interesting imo are the pieces that didnt make the cut and were either discarded and lost to time or destroyed. We probably will never fully know what was written at the time. Only what made it through the political and religious battles that separate us from the time of the original writings.
As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed. At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.
Uhh, ok. You just said a bunch of stuff that is obvious to everyone, doesn't contradict anything I said really, but stated it in a manner like you were making some amazing point refuting me.
Congratulations?
So...is this the time and place to bring up that the officials fucked up by calling pass interference at the end of the Notre Dame - FSU game?
I saw the movie. I felt that it was alright, but I feel like I enjoyed the Ten Commandments more.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 04:17:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed. At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.
Slaves and women.
There were some notable few rich patrons that figure rather signficantly in the development of Christianity.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 09:34:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 30, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
But that doesn't strike me as the most likely explanation for the historical fact of the existence of the bible around the time it was written, and the rise of the largest religious movement in human history.
The Bible wasnt aorund at the time "it was written". The Bible as we now know it was put together from selected pieces written over a long period of time and which were selected even later to be included in the book we now call the Bible. Also, even amongst the books that were selected it is difficult for us to know with any certainty whether the version and translations we now have are accurate although scholars like Erhman have done their best to try to piece together what may be the most accurate versions by trying to filture out all the forgeries and poor translations which occurred over time.
What is more interesting imo are the pieces that didnt make the cut and were either discarded and lost to time or destroyed. We probably will never fully know what was written at the time. Only what made it through the political and religious battles that separate us from the time of the original writings.
As to what made Christianity "the largest religious movement in history", that has a lot more to do with becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire and then by default the religion of the West after the Roman Empire failed. At the start Christianity was just another mystery sect which was particularly attractive to slaves.
Uhh, ok. You just said a bunch of stuff that is obvious to everyone, doesn't contradict anything I said really, but stated it in a manner like you were making some amazing point refuting me.
Congratulations?
I see, you were just using sloppy language that led to inaccurate conclusions but you did so because you understood everyone would know that. Got it.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2014, 10:34:07 PM
It is interesting what you say about King David. As you know, I got back recently from Israel. While there, I visited the archeological site near Silwan from the first temple period that is billed as "the city of David". The tour started with a movie that credited the Bible stories being the guide for the excavations and the tour was very heavy on pointing out how the excavations matched up with Bible passages.
My impression has been that the Bible starts out as pure myth (the Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, etc) but as it goes along gains historical accuracy to the point it is probably as accurate as any other source from the time period (ie, not very, but somewhat grounded in reality). From what you write, and I think you would know, I suspect that the tour guide was reaching a bit to please the typical audience that I suspect are Jews or Christian pilgrims. I had the impression the David stuff was fairly well substantiated.
It's very much debated. It depends on interpretation of archaeological evidence which is ambiguous. One big problem is the lack of chronological anchors because the relevant period of the earlier monarchy - roughly sometime in the 11th century BCE to the 8th century is a bit of a "dark age" generally in the region. The first "Israelite" kings that emerge from the fog are northern kings that the Bible condemns (Ahab and Omri), everything before that has to be inferred and guessed at from fragmentary evidence like the Tel Dan Stela, and stratigraphic guesswork from various sites, including the Stepped Stone Structure in Jerusalem.
My own view tends to those who contend that David was a real figure, but probably no more than a glorified chieftain of a small and relatively unorganized polity. But there is the interesting episode of the invasion of the Canaanite hill country the Egyptian Sheshonq (the "Shishak" of the OT). One could infer that invasion implied some significant state in that area; otherwise why would Sheshonq bother? Of course that again raises the question of chronology which itself is problematic, and it requires various assumptions that can't be confirmed. Interesting problem.
The Biblical text is very problematic as a historical source for the obvious reasons; although at times the text seems to carry kernels of historical information (usually place names) in their proper time, there are tons of anachronisms in the "historical" books - namely places and situations that existed in the 8th-6th centuries but not in the times in which the OT text tries to put them. The scare quotes on historical are especially appropriate in this context, since whoever wrote these books did not remotely conceive of them as histories as we would understand the term.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2014, 04:16:42 PM
From what I've read the general scholarly consensus is that there was a figure who was baptised by John the Baptist (there's more other sources on him than Christ), who did preach and possibly had issues with the Temple and was crucified. The rest of the Biblical account is rather questionable but those bare facts are broadly agreed on by all modern Ancient Historians I've read.
...
Edit: And of course it's worth going back to Mark which is the oldest Gospel. The version that scholars now believe is the oldest starts with Jesus as a man getting baptised by John. Then there's preaching and calling disciples and the odd miracle - feeding the five thousand. It ends with crucifixion and an empty tomb, but not resurrection.
The hermeneutics of suspicion can do a good amount of lifting. The fact of the baptism of John is theologically problematic and the Gospel authors seem to have some spin about it, that suggests the tradition is authentic. Crucifixion is such an unusual fate for a messiah so that is usually accepted as accurate. The "King of the Jews" writing is not a Christian moniker and appears in no other context and thus may be authentic (and would explain Roman involvement). Markian priority seems pretty well accepted and the Jesus that is depicted therein - an exorcist and miracle worker - was as Malthus said a not uncommon type in the region in that era so is likely close to truth.
Quote from: Queequeg on December 29, 2014, 01:02:38 PM
Semitic people lived in Egypt in this period. It could have started as "hey remember how our great-great-great grandfather was a Hyksos? Well he wasn't a brutal conqueror-the Egyptians were mean to him." This is also a period when the Egyptians are starting to expand their control in to Canaan, so it might have started as a story of Semitic peoples fleeing Egyptian expansion in to the eastern wilderness and was then reinterpreted as foreshadowing the Babylonian exile.
Well . . . people have argued that the Joseph story incorporates some vague folk memory of the Hyskos period. I suppose it is possible but the time scale here is much bigger than you are acknowledging - 350 years form the fall of Hyskos to Ramses II/Mereptah, 600+ years to the supposed Davidite monarchy, close to a millennium to the reduction of the story to writing. People also have argued that Semitic peoples retained a presence in New Kingdom Egypt and were dragooned into the NK building projects, and have pointed to Egyptian accounts of small groups of workers escaping and sneaking past the Sinaic fortress line. So this experience is speculated to give rise to a later folk legend of mass exodus.
Eh - maybe. My response is if so, so what? Does linking all this speculation together somehow bring any greater understanding of history than before? I think not.