Archaeologica.org

Aren't history and archeology inherently entwined?

We have artifacts, we have old tales aka historical record, we have hard core beliefs, and clubs......

what we fail at (and miserably so) is being able to properly interpret artifacts without the *voices* of individual prejudices whispering in our ears.

I enjoyed the Z movie because it set a logical framework for a VERY illogical concept (worshiping anything based on archaic lore) and just set the stage for this broader understanding of WHY and HOW it happened.

One we remove the illogical concept of worshiping and ordering our modern lives around ancient beliefs and habits, we could look at the RECORD and make some sense of it!

There are just too many damm clubs.

Aren't history and archeology inherently entwined?

Of course. The problem arises when people mistake religious texts for historical ones.

clubs_stink wrote:
One we remove the illogical concept of worshiping and ordering our modern lives around ancient beliefs and habits, we could look at the RECORD and make some sense of it!

I think there are some "ancient beliefs and habits" that we are poorer of through our ignorance of what they were.

On top of that, the RECORD is unreliable because the data on it has been variously, at different times, a) censored out of existence, b) misinterpreted in translation and/or c) lost.

I do not want to appear to be a closed mind defender of The Bible.

It is true that by following a pretty strict interruption of it I have been able to raise 5 children with very little problems. No drugs, no pre-martial pregnancies, nobody ever in jail, etc.

But the same could probably be said of a father following a strict interruption of the Torah, the Vedic, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other “ism” (Except, maybe, “Darwinism.”)

And that is the status I would like to see the Bible given.
As being at least equal to the other “holy books.”

Not as history book, which they were not meant to be, but as something giving us hints at history.

Istar started this thread with references to the Vedic. Not a history book, but a “holy book” that may give us some insight into history. Nobody took offense.

Min, and others, along the way have made references to the Gilgamesh story. Not by anyone’s definition a history book. But nobody took offense.

Where is the archaeology supporting the existence of the people in these books?

Why is it that as soon as something is labeled a “Bible Story” that it just cannot have any respect?

Why is it not even given the courtesy of being quietly ignored, but is openly attacked? While the others are not.

Where is the archaeology supporting the existence of the people in these books?

There are museums full of evidence for ancient Mesopotamian cultures. We have their literature, their crop reports, their tax records, their inscriptions, their statues, their towns, etc.

BTW, I raised my two without any sort of religion and they turned out fine.

I submit that it is not the book but the hand that does the rearing!

kbs2244 wrote: Istar started this thread with references to the Vedic. Not a history book, but a “holy book” that may give us some insight into history. Nobody took offense.

Min, and others, along the way have made references to the Gilgamesh story. Not by anyone’s definition a history book. But nobody took offense.

Where is the archaeology supporting the existence of the people in these books?

kbs2244 - I wasn't quoting from these books as historical records. I was quoting from them as story books to show how stories develop and spread. Not that they're necessarily true.

kbs2244 wrote:
Why is it that as soon as something is labeled a “Bible Story” that it just cannot have any respect?

Why is it not even given the courtesy of being quietly ignored, but is openly attacked? While the others are not.

What I don't respect, and what I attack, is being told something is true when it patently isn't - when people are misled into believing that a metaphorical, allegorical story pointing to a greater truth is actually literally true, and that therein lays its value and nowhere else.

You are misunderstanding what is going on here.

Sorry.
I will retreat to the weeds.

Ishtar wrote:

kbs2244 wrote: Istar started this thread with references to the Vedic. Not a history book, but a “holy book” that may give us some insight into history. Nobody took offense.

Min, and others, along the way have made references to the Gilgamesh story. Not by anyone’s definition a history book. But nobody took offense.

Where is the archaeology supporting the existence of the people in these books?

kbs2244 - I wasn't quoting from these books as historical records. I was quoting from them as story books to show how stories develop and spread. Not that they're necessarily true.

kbs2244 wrote:
Why is it that as soon as something is labeled a “Bible Story” that it just cannot have any respect?

Why is it not even given the courtesy of being quietly ignored, but is openly attacked? While the others are not.

What I don't respect, and what I attack, is being told something is true when it patently isn't - when people are misled into believing that a metaphorical, allegorical story pointing to a greater truth is actually literally true, and that therein lays its value and nowhere else.

You are misunderstanding what is going on here.

Ishtar -

"What I don't respect, and what I attack, is being told something is true when it patently isn't - when people are misled into believing that a metaphorical, allegorical story pointing to a greater truth is actually literally true, and that therein lays its value and nowhere else."

Ishtar -

Equally true of all religious, and historical, and philosophical written records. Plus cave paintings, and all the physical art of those who lived before the written word.

What is patently true or untrue lies in the eye of the beholder.........

and just how do you define the eye of the beholder?

john

Hi John

What I'm talking about here, in particular, is the church putting out the propaganda for 2,000 years that Jesus was a real historical figure and that the events of the gospel actually happened, when you only have to look at other literature at that time to see that it was another version of a classic Mystery story, told to initiates before undergoing spiritual transformation. There is also no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. So that's a little bit more than "the eye of the beholder" although I do take your point on that more generally.

for 2,000 years that Jesus was a real historical figure

I wasn't around then so I can't comment, but the disciples obviously thought differently. What did they follow, a Chimera?

Digit wrote:

for 2,000 years that Jesus was a real historical figure

I wasn't around then so I can't comment, but the disciples obviously thought differently. What did they follow, a Chimera?

But do we have historical evidence for these 12 disciples? This is a genuine question...I'm not trying to be clever (for once! )

I believe that we have as much evidence for Peter and Paul as we do for the Buddha and Mohammet.
Both the last two are basically known to us by those who followed them, same as with the Disciples.

Mithras had 12 special "friends" too, you know.

Many sun-worshipping religions had their god-man figure gather twelve disciples, one for each division of space. The prime example is Mithras, the half-god half-human saviour of Mithraism, a Roman mystery religion. In keeping with other developed sun-worshipping religions, the saviour (Mithras) is depicted in drawing with an aurora behind his head, representing the sun.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/twelve.html

Don't doubt it for a moment Min, and I suspect that people like Koresh would surround themselves with 12 disciples if they were starting a new religion. Makes it easier for people to accept I suspect.

Digit wrote:I believe that we have as much evidence for Peter and Paul as we do for the Buddha and Mohammet.
Both the last two are basically known to us by those who followed them, same as with the Disciples.

The only "evidence" we have comes from the writings of Christian authors. There is no independent historical reference to these people.

For a long time I have considered it a telling argument that later Christian writers felt the need to forge historical references to Jesus. If there were authentic references, why invent obvious forgeries?