How often people do get plunged into the underworld out there? That’s Hercules, Oedipus, Heracles (Hercules’s nonunion Roman equivalent), persephone (rhymes with shone), Orpheus, who else? That’s like all the ancient geeks I know
There was no such thing as academic tenure in those times and every historian depended on having a patron, usually a wealthy Senator. They probably cared more about keeping their patron happy than whether what they wrote was true or not.
I mean were you there? How do you know the intentions of the people writing things down back then?
LOL. Yeah the Romans were known for never being corrupt and they would never ever be skimming some tax revenue! Therefore those tax numbers were 100% accurate all of the time.
And Julius Caesar defeated one zillion Gauls at the Battle of Alesia. He would never exaggerate, because people cared a lot about whether the things they were writing were true.
I think I’ll go on thinking that primary sources are all inherently flawed. The Viking sagas talk about their colony in Vinland along with fighting sea serpents. They’re mostly bullshit, but it’s the only written record of Vinland which is supported by archaeological evidence. Do you discard everything in the sagas because there’s some mythological stuff in them? Do you inherently trust Roman records about taxes because they they’re dry and boring?
Or maybe historians are correct to consider the context of any work written (and that includes religious texts) alongside archaeological evidence? Also consider that for most of history most people couldn’t read or write. There’s always oral history that’s written down centuries later. Many things were never written down, and many things that were written down were destroyed. We have a limited amount of information from historical texts and given how uncommon literacy was in past, it’s usually written by either a wealthy person, someone employed by a wealthy person, or a priest. It’s always going to be an incomplete picture, and it all has a lot of bullshit in it.
I appreciate that link. I also like and recognize that you accept that “early Christians” is a misnomer and they were actually a sect of Judaism. They called themselves Jews as well.
you accept that “early Christians” is a misnomer and they were actually a sect of Judaism
I don’t think this internally contradictory. No more than asserting that “early Mormons” were a sect of Christianity, and therefore not real Mormons somehow.
They were Jewish until they called themselves something different. We know they called themselves Jews until at least the trashing of the temple, so around 70 ad or so. After that, I think the historians say they start to change their names. Not sure if it was always Christians as the name they chose. It’s interesting, I’ll start looking it up.
The new testament was written like a hundred years after Jesus died. Its entirely bullshit.
It’s an oral history whose earliest written accounts are dates between 60-150 years after the events in questions.
No more “bullshit” than any number of other 2000 year old transcribed histories.
It’s as bullshit as all the other oral histories that claim magic things
Contemporary Roman records are less bullshit than Jesus walking on water in the New Testament because the writer cared whether or not it was true.
Didn’t Pliny the Elder include the Basilisk, the Manticore, and the Phoenix in his Natural History?
Meanwhile, Seneca described the feats of Hercules, the sorcery of Medea, and the plung into the underworld by Oedipus.
How often people do get plunged into the underworld out there? That’s Hercules, Oedipus, Heracles (Hercules’s nonunion Roman equivalent), persephone (rhymes with shone), Orpheus, who else? That’s like all the ancient geeks I know
*ancient nerds
Ah OK I misunderstood and thought you meant anything written down at that time.
There was no such thing as academic tenure in those times and every historian depended on having a patron, usually a wealthy Senator. They probably cared more about keeping their patron happy than whether what they wrote was true or not.
I mean were you there? How do you know the intentions of the people writing things down back then?
Less bullshit, not perfectly credible. Records on taxes and grain production are much more plausible than magic powers.
LOL. Yeah the Romans were known for never being corrupt and they would never ever be skimming some tax revenue! Therefore those tax numbers were 100% accurate all of the time.
And Julius Caesar defeated one zillion Gauls at the Battle of Alesia. He would never exaggerate, because people cared a lot about whether the things they were writing were true.
I think I’ll go on thinking that primary sources are all inherently flawed. The Viking sagas talk about their colony in Vinland along with fighting sea serpents. They’re mostly bullshit, but it’s the only written record of Vinland which is supported by archaeological evidence. Do you discard everything in the sagas because there’s some mythological stuff in them? Do you inherently trust Roman records about taxes because they they’re dry and boring?
Or maybe historians are correct to consider the context of any work written (and that includes religious texts) alongside archaeological evidence? Also consider that for most of history most people couldn’t read or write. There’s always oral history that’s written down centuries later. Many things were never written down, and many things that were written down were destroyed. We have a limited amount of information from historical texts and given how uncommon literacy was in past, it’s usually written by either a wealthy person, someone employed by a wealthy person, or a priest. It’s always going to be an incomplete picture, and it all has a lot of bullshit in it.
I’m not sure we’re on the same page here
Yes the other stories are also 100% bullshit
No shortage of contemporary accounts.
But it was collected and disseminated by a bunch of dudes in the 300s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Nicae canonized the subset of Gospels they considered legitimate and excised the Gospels they considered heretical.
But the earliest surviving written gospel is dated to AD 125, with speculation (based on adjacent writings) dating new testament documents back to AD 60.
I thought the Council of Nicaea was about addressing Arianism rather than settling the New Testament canon?
Ah, you’re right. I had to confused with the 382 Synod of Rome.
The Council of Nicaea addressed many things, including Christians making themselves eunuchs (as Jesus said to), which was very popular at the time.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm
I appreciate that link. I also like and recognize that you accept that “early Christians” is a misnomer and they were actually a sect of Judaism. They called themselves Jews as well.
I don’t think this internally contradictory. No more than asserting that “early Mormons” were a sect of Christianity, and therefore not real Mormons somehow.
They were Jewish until they called themselves something different. We know they called themselves Jews until at least the trashing of the temple, so around 70 ad or so. After that, I think the historians say they start to change their names. Not sure if it was always Christians as the name they chose. It’s interesting, I’ll start looking it up.
No, they’re not real mormons now because they’re dead. It’s been like 200 years