I’m not a student of Alcibiades’ life, but I suggest that accounts of his life (and I don’t doubt he existed) are probably full of obvious bullshit as well–just less obvious to us today than miraculous claims. Without knowing anything about the man I will wager all the change in my couch that he “won a battle where he was outnumbered 10-1,” or some such. Victor’s history. Remember that Thermopylae was a defeat for the Greeks.
Even biographical accounts of present-day figures are full of obvious bullshit, some of it even pertaining to miraculous occurrences. The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claimed to be able to levitate. He was a real person, but if in 2000 years if all that remains to document the Maharishi are writings by his own followers that include mention of levitation, future Dopers will question his existence.
I think I’ll just cut to the chase, since I don’t think that this is really about the census. I suspect that what we have here is a profound difference in fundamental assumptions. It’s probably a good thing that we’re not married.
You can make all kinds of fundamental assumptions. For instance, you can assume that everyone in history is fictional, and that the only people who ever existed were the writers who invented those people. Except that the writers didn’t exist either, but were actually other writers. This, however, is not what one would call a parsimonious explanation of anything.
Or, you can assume that everything ever written is equally true, no matter how much it looks like bullshit. In that case, you at least get to live in a world where a lot of weird and wacky things have happened. For instance, the philosopher Empedocles really did die by jumping into a volcano, and the emperor Justinian really was a demon, who sometimes would walk around his palace at night without his head on. Plus, for bonus points, there really is a Santa Claus.
You can even assume that everything in the New Testament, specifically, is literally true and consistent, but everything else is invented. Hence, Socrates (or, for that matter, Hitler or my grandfather Bill) didn’t exist, but Jesus really did perform miracles. Why you would assume that, I have no idea, but maybe this is opposite day.
There are other possibilities I could bring up, but that will do to illustrate the point.
Here’s how I see it: History is basically like a giant forensic investigation. You have a crime scene. You have a bunch of witnesses, some of whom are more reliable than others. You also have some physical evidence. Then, you try to make sense of it all to the best of your ability, in a practical and hands-on sort of way.
If you’re a good investigator, you want to find out what happened. If you’re a bad one, maybe you want to fudge the evidence to get your buddy off the hook, or to pin the blame on someone you don’t like. But, to be charitable, let’s assume that you’re a good one. In that case, your first and best tool on the job is a bullshit detector. If one witness claims that the perpetrator was an invisible werewolf, while another one suggests that it might have been the butler, the smart bet is the butler. If other evidence backs this up, you’ll have a hard time convincing a jury of the invisible werewolf story.
Or, maybe I should put this another way. Doing history, the way I look at it, is much like the situation I have found myself in on many a Sunday morning. It’s an attempt to explain the following conundrum: What the hell happened, and how did we get here?
Oh, sure. Again, bullshit shows up everywhere. For instance, troop numbers and casualty figures for ancient battles are always notoriously bullshitty. So that’s one thing that’ll probably be in there, for starters.
Another thing is, for instance, that Alcibiades pops up as one of the characters in Plato’s Symposium. Plato is, as we’ve mentioned, a known bullshitter. So, portrayals of that sort will be questionable. Plutarch’s account of his death smells bullshitty. And so forth. There are probably bigger issues, too. And, of course, various writers don’t always agree on some things.
It’s just the nature of the beast. There’s bullshit everywhere, to some extent. I’ll repeat myself from earlier: When reconstructing the historical [whomever], what you have to work with is what you’re left with after you get rid of the obvious bullshit. My contention is simply that you’re left with more in the case of Alcibiades than for certain others (including, for instance, Socrates).
One issue is, of course, with the kind of things that we want to know. What counts as a biography kind of depends on what kind of person you are. For Socrates, it’s often about what he actually said about philosophical matters. That’s the kind of thing which might be tricky for someone who didn’t write any books. Alcibiades, of course, didn’t write any books either, but the difference is that we don’t care much what he thought about philosophy, any more than we care about what our local hairdresser thinks.
What we care about is, for instance, what he got up to during the Peloponnesian War. That also happens to be something that ancient writers cared greatly about. Which is why they go on about it endlessly.
Now, what I want to know is whether or not he was the one who knocked the penises off those herms. On that, apparently, the jury is out.
Contradictions occur on his date of birth, some have it as February 11, others claim February 22. February 22 can not be the right date as George Washington’s birthday was celebrated as a holiday for decades, but never on February 22.:eek:
Most so-called “historians” of this alleged “George Washington” wrote decades or centuries after “George Washington” supposedly died. None actually met him in person.
“George Washington” was not the “Father of his Country” as it has been shown he had no children of his own.
That he chopped down a cherry tree is a myth, and that he “threw a silver dollar across the Potomac River” is a obvious miracle tale, impossible.
It appears the story of “George Washington” was taken from that of Cincinnatus.
You’re very funny. I probably shouldn’t yank your chain, but as too often happens, it’s late, and I’m drunk.
You have now provided the side for the prosecution. The problem is that there is also a case for the defense. This is the evidence that George Washington did exist, and that he got up to certain things. I’ll let you do the math.
Now do the same thing for Jesus. The evidence for the prosecution is not entirely to be sniffed at. However, the defense has a case here, too. If you argue for the defense, you’ll probably end up proving beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to me, if I was on the jury) that he existed, that he was a preacher, that he said certain things (some of which might be sniffed out from the Gospels), that he had followers, that he was put on trial for charges which are not completely clear, and that he was executed by way of crucifixion by the Roman authorities. Plus some other things.
There is, however, a bunch of things which are up for debate. And then there is the miraculous stuff, on which I still call bullshit for reasons I have already explained, no matter how much you contort yourself. Note, again, that these reasons have nothing to do with the Gospels per se. They have to do with being able to call bullshit on things in general.
I think I understand one of your fundamental assumptions. It is that either the Gospels are literally true and consistent, in every particular, or Jesus didn’t exist. Since the second option is a priori impossible, the first one must be true. Please note, that if I’m right about that, it’s *your *assumption. It’ sure as hell not mine. And I’d like to ask you this: Would you apply the same binary logic to George Washington? To Socrates? To my grandfather Bill? Or is this a Bible-specific sort of thing?
Look, just because there are contradictions, lies and myths connected to Geo Washington “*Franklin did this and Franklin did that and Franklin did some other damn thing. Franklin smote the ground and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. Franklin then electrified him with his miraculous lightning rod and the three of them - Franklin, Washington, and the horse - conducted the entire revolution by themselves.”
Doesnt mean old Geo didnt exist. Just because there are contradictions, lies and myths connected to Jesus doesnt mean he didnt exist.
OK, let’s take this as an example. Your explanation of what’s going on here is that Luke made a mistake, and placed the census under Quirinius about 11-12 years before it actually happened. The problem with this explanation is that Luke was fully aware of the census under Quirinius and when it happens, he makes reference to it again in Acts 5 as being contemporaneous with the revolt of Judas the Galilean, which it in fact was.
It seems more likely to me that Luke isn’t saying what you think he is. Here’s one possibility: the word Luke uses here (apographe) can refer either to the registration itself, or to the taxation for the purpose of which the registration was made, which is why different translations translate it differently. If the registration/census began in 5-6 BC or so, was interrupted, and was then completed 12 years later, that would fit what Luke is saying without any contradiction. It’s also possible that the registration was completed in 6 BC and then the taxation itself was carried out twelve years later.
Why does having a virgin birth, raising dead people, etc., put you in “obvious fairly tale” territory? You’re starting from a premise of metaphysical naturalism, which I don’t share. I don’t think miracles happen very often, but I believe that supernatural entities exist, and that by definition they aren’t bound by natural law. The laws of nature preclude walking on water, yes: that’s what makes it a miracle (i.e. a suspension or abrogation of natural laws).
It’s certainly true there are lots of miracle stories attributed to various people throughout history. That doesn’t mean that none of them happened. Maybe all of them are false, maybe all of them are true, maybe some are false and others are true. Each of those accounts needs to be weighed on its own merits though. In the case of Romulus, I’d say the accounts are less credible partly because they were set down long after the fact in explicitly mythological terms. The Gospel accounts, on the other hand, were written close to the events in time, in at least one case by an eyewitness (and in other cases by people who interviewed eyewitnesses), and contain exactly the kind of close attention to geographical and social details that we’d expect of a historical account rather than a mythological one. (That having been said, I don’t necessarily disbelieve all miracle accounts from other religious traditions either: I suspect at least some of them are accurate).
Ah, the appeal to naturalist explanation. That’s an interesting option if you want to get rid of the miracles. (Although keep in mind that if you go with that one, and then later switch to insisting that miracles do happen, people will call you on it.)
You still have a problem, though. You can explain away the Gospels piecemeal that way. For each and every case where something weird is going on, you can come up with a realistic or scientific explanation. Maybe Lazarus was only mostly dead. Maybe the walking on the water thing was a matter of knowing where the stones under the water line were. Maybe later, Jesus himself was only mostly dead. BTW, Josephus mentions an episode where someone (not Jesus, another dude) survives a crucifixion, because they were taken down in time.
Et cetera, The problem is that that stuff adds up. A single event is one thing, but when you have to explain away a whole bag full of questionable events, and they just keep on coming, that is a pretty good hint that naturalist explanation is not your best bet. There’s probably something else going on.
BTW, on that subject, and concerning Romulus and Remus. In Roman times, there was this suggestion that you might hear that there wasn’t actually a wolf, but the twins were suckled by a prostitute. See, a Roman slang term for prostitute was she-wolf (lupa). Well, maybe. It does seem, though, that if you’re going with that as an option, you’re kind of missing the whole point of the story.
Similarly, if you’re going with naturalist explanations for Jesus… well, it’s not the same story anymore, is it? The point of it kind of evaporates, and now it’s not even a good story. You have contorted yourself into a position where it may look more true, in a strict sense (although it’s still outlandish and completely unreasonable, just for different reasons), but it’s no longer very interesting.
Somehow, this question seems to contain its own answer. I had a whole post planned out, but I think I’ll just leave it there.
Or, actually, I’ll add this:
Well, maybe they do (some of that is also debatable, but whatever). As long as you don’t count the miraculous or supernatural events.
See, this here is the problem again. Someone’s fundamental assumption seems to be that either it’s all true, or none of it is. Either it’s a historical account, or it’s a mythological account. Well, no. Maybe it’s a historical-ish account that has a pile of bullshit in it.
Right, but it also means that using Mason Locke Weems’s biography (where the cherry tree myth, for example, appears to get its origin) of GW as your sole source of material is a risky proposition – one that puts you in a position where you’re not exactly in a good place to make a compelling argument that he did exist.
Look, could we get back to the most important question here? Did Alcibiades knock those penises off those herms or not? Arguments both for and against would be greatly appreciated.
No, not at all. Luke sure does seem to know his shit about the census. There really seems to be something going on there. I’m saying that if that’s the case, then the bit about Herod seems to be wrong. He seems to be unclear on something, although not necessarily the date of the census.
The larger point: Someone, somewhere, seems to be wrong about something. I guess I wasn’t aware that this was such a controversial view to hold. Oh no, something seems to be wrong in an ancient text. Yeah, no kidding? To borrow a phrase from the poet Saul Goodman: I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s been known to happen.
I’ll also note again that I brought up the census business as an example of what I consider to *not *be the actual problem with the Gospels as historical accounts, but rather the kind of minor red herring people get hung up on, while ignoring the giant elephants in the room. So I’m not sure what you think that you’re proving.
Unless you want to nail down when the census took place. Well, it was 6 AD. Or you want to know when Herod died. Well, signs point to 4 BC. If you want to know when Jesus was born, it was probably somewhere in the range of 4 BC to 6 AD, or thereabouts. I’m not entirely sure why this is an unacceptable level of precision, all things considered. Seems pretty good to me, considering the sources you have to work with.
