History is a fascinating topic but so frequently we get things wrong and spread misinformation and myths. This list is the second in our series focussing specifically on historical errors. The first was written just under two years ago, so it is high time we saw another. Hopefully this list will help us all to help put an end to the mythologies that so many people believe today.
The Myth: An Old Religion was practiced in rural Europe until it was stamped out by the witchcraft persecutions, which killed millions of women. [Source]
The Witch-cult is the term for a hypothetical pre-Christian, pagan religion of Europe that allegedly survived into at least the early modern period. The theory was postulated by some 19th and 20th century scholars based upon the conspiracy theory that the European witchcraft which had been persecuted in the witch-hunt had been a part of a Satanic plot to overthrow Christianity, and indeed most of the evidence for the theory was compiled by studying the accounts of the persecutors in the witch trials in Early Modern Europe. The theory notably gave rise to several neopagan religions, such as Wicca and Stregheria in the 20th century. In fact, there was no “old religion” and modern day Wicca originated in the 20th century and was popularized by Gerald Gardner in 1954.
The Myth: Starvation was rife in the Great Depression
It is very common when hearing about the Great Depression to imagine hoards of families starving to death due to lack of food and money, but while money was, indeed, scarce, most people were able to survive through resourcefulness and charity. The depression meant hunger, malnutrition, overcrowding, and poor health. It gave rise to widespread poverty and suffering. While virtually no one died from starvation, many did not have enough to eat. People searched garbage dumps for food or ate weeds. It is the resourcefulness that people learnt during this time that helped to make rationing easier on the British during the Second World War. The replacement of a hands-off approach to the economy with a more regulated one by President Roosevelt has been blamed by many for the current economic crisis.
The Myth: Cleopatra was Egyptian
Though Cleopatra bore the ancient Egyptian title of pharaoh, the Ptolemaic dynasty (of which she was a part) was Hellenistic (Greek), having been founded 300 years before by Ptolemy I Soter, a Macedonian Greek general of Alexander the Great (depicted by Anthony Hopkins in the Oliver Stone film: Alexander). As such Cleopatra’s language was the Greek spoken by the Hellenic aristocracy, though she was reputed to be the first ruler of the dynasty to learn Egyptian. She also adopted common Egyptian beliefs and deities. According to tradition, saddened by the loss of her lover Mark Antony, she killed herself by means of an asp bite on August 12, 30 BC.
The Myth: Slaves built the pyramids
We have all seen the movies and heard the tales of slaves captured by Egyptian military excursions being used to build the pyramids and temples of Ancient Egypt, but, in fact, they are all completely wrong. Contrary to popular belief, excavated skeletons show that the pyramid builders were actually Egyptians who were most likely in the permanent employ of the pharaoh. Graffiti indicates that at least some of these workers took pride in their work, calling their teams “Friends of Khufu,” “Drunkards of Menkaure,” and so on—names indicating allegiances to pharaohs.
The Myth: The inquisition saw the slaughter of tens of thousands
The modern day notion of a unified and horrible “Inquisition” is an assemblage of the “body of legends and myths which, between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries, established the perceived character of inquisitorial tribunals and influenced all ensuing efforts to recover their historical reality”. It was the relatively limited persecution of Protestants, mostly by the inquisitions in Spain and Italy, that provoked the first image of “The Inquisition” as the most violent and suppressive vehicle of the Church. Under the rule of the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I and threatened with military attacks from Spain, England found a new surge of nationalism being fueled by anti-Catholic propaganda centered on a series of books and pamphlets that detailed the horror of the “Spanish Inquisition”. But the reality? No more than 2,000 people who were tried by the Inquisition were executed. The Spanish Inquisition (which should not be confused with the Office of Inquisition which still exists in the Church as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) ceased operating on the 15th July 1834.
The Myth: Emperor Caligula made his horse a consul (a figurative head of the republican government)
Caligula’s love for his horse, Incitatus, was well known in his time and in present times, but the modern love of a good myth has promoted the horse to a far greater position than in reality. About seventy years after Caligula died, the historian Seutonius wrote of Caligula and Incitatus: “Besides a stall of marble, a manger of ivory, purple blankets and a collar of precious stones, he even gave his horse a house, a troop of slaves and furniture, for the more elegant entertainment of the guests invited in his name: and it is also said that he planned to make him consul.” The fact that this was not a first hand account (hence saying: “it is also said”) the report is dubious. There are no other records that indicate that Caligula did ever indicate that he planned to raise Incitatus to such an important place – let alone do it.
The Myth: Catherine the Great died whilst having sex with a horse
While this myth is very amusing (no doubt the reason for its popularity), Catherine died in bed of illness; there were no equines involved and a Catherine/horse nexus was never attempted. So how did the myth arise? During past centuries the easiest way for people to offend and verbally attack their female enemies was sex. Catherine the Great was always going to attract rumours about her sex life, but her voracious sexual appetite – while modest by modern standards – meant that the rumours had to be even wilder. Historians believe the horse myth originated in France, among the French upper classes, soon after Catherine’s death as a way to mar her legend. [Source]
The Myth: Spanish flu came from Spain
The Spanish flu pandemic (the same virus as Swine flu) lasted from March 1918 to June 1920, spreading even to the Arctic and remote Pacific islands. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 100 million people were killed worldwide, or the approximate equivalent of one third of the population of Europe. Although the first cases of the disease were registered in the continental US and the rest of Europe long before getting to Spain, the 1918 Flu received its nickname “Spanish Flu” because Spain, a neutral country in WWI, had no special censorship for news against the disease and its consequences. Hence the most reliable news came from Spain, giving the false impression that Spain was the most—if not the only—affected zone. So thanks to the honesty of Spain, they are now marred forever by the title of the worst flu epidemic in modern history.
The Myth: Amazons were women who cut off one breast so they could use a bow and arrow better
Considering how ridiculous this story is, it is hard to believe that so many people believe it. This element of the Amazon myth was invented in the 5th century B.C. The poor Amazons had to start mutilating themselves because some big boob thoughtlessly dabbled in the dark art of etymology without the proper equipment. Hellanicus of Lesbos imagined the name was derived from the Greek prefix a- (“without”) and mazos, a variant of mastos (“breast”). He was surely wrong, but his folk etymology is still firmly embedded in the collective consciousness after more than two dozen centuries. There was no hint before his time, either in writing or art, that the Amazons had anything other than usual complement of breasts, so we can safely assume that the one-breasted image we have of them flowed from the (false) etymology and not vice versa. [Source]
The Myth: Jesus spoke Hebrew
First of all, Jesus probably did have a knowledge of Hebrew, but he didn’t speak it. The language spoken by Jesus (and the apostles) was Aramaic. Aramaic is a semitic language and it was the day-to-day language of Israel from 539 BC – 70 AD. In fact, contrary to popular belief, some parts of the Bible were never written in Hebrew – but rather Aramaic – chiefly Daniel and Ezra. It is also likely that Jesus was fluent in Greek as this was the secondary language of the region and it was the language of the common version of the Bible used by the Jews at the time. Even one of the most well know sayings of Jesus upon the Cross is Aramaic: “Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?” meaning “My God, my God, for what have you forsaken me?”
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.
























July 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
cleopatra greek huh… interstin
goooooood list man
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 am
See. I told ya! The Pyramids were built by common people. Not slaves or aliens or Atlanteans. The Pyramids are a monument to human achievement & the human spirit.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 am
I think you’ve got it the wrong way round about Roosevelt. It was the lightly regulated markets which allowed banks to act in the way they did, leading to this current recession!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
awesome list… i had heard the amazon one but always new it wasnt true. THe otheres were kind of news… Oh i didnt know the cleopatra one, always thought she was egyptian.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 am
first is stupid and against listverse rules, it will surely be deleted. It doesnt contribute to the community and its a bit annoying (fine im just quoting jaime lol)
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 am
The Spanish Flu item was the only one I didn’t know. Got to say – it seems like a bit of a stretch to blame Roosevelt for the current economic blight. Do ‘the many’ who do blame him work for Fox News or the unregulated Wall Street/City Casinos (sorry – financial organisations).
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 am
I actually had a notion to go into a bunch of old lists and put in ‘LAST!!!’ in the comments box… but then thought better of it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 am
@Aaron (3): the markets are very heavily regulated and it didn’t help – the bailouts are meant to fix the disaster caused by that – they won’t help though – as we have seen already
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 am
Number 1 reminded me of stories that some people think the bible was written in English(!) When people quote bible verses at me, I think to myself – you’ve only read translations or translations of translations.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
Good list but i think number 1 is wrong, every film I ever saw about Jesus he always spoke English!!!
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:07 am
really interesting ! i learn new things today xD
im addicted to ur site xD
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:25 am
got to say one tittied chicks make me poo little bricks.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 am
The Amazons cuttin off one breast….I thought that was true…Wow. Thanks JFrater. Great List
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 am
Love this site.. totally addicted! Didnt kno about Cleopatra!
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:26 am
great list!
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:29 am
Excellent list. However I am a bit worried about there being three follow up list in a row, albiet all of high quality. Listverse can’t be running out of lists surely.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 am
I believe that Jesus Christ as well as the apostles can speak a lot of languages, that’s the gift of the tounge.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 am
I still think that the biggest Historical Myth of Mankind is the physical appearance of Jesus.
The current European depiction of a blue eyed, tall, handsome, modelesque version of Jesus is likely to be as far away from truth as possible!
While this doesn’t make him less of a messiah, it does make the followers a little shallow for giving his appearance more importance than required.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 am
I think you are wrong about number one. Its like the french. They speak french with foreign people but they generaly speak english or some corsican dialect(but this case is rare) when talking to other french
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 am
Eyeswideshut I second tht
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 am
Bullshit right off the bat. It’s obvious that the author is some lunatic Jesus freak. Ever hear of the Druids? There were plenty of other religions in Europe before xianity.
The little bit about the inquisition was an interesting touch too….
But the clincher is the obviously Jew hating Jesus freak has to mention that Jesus spoke Aramaic while only claiming that he would have “likely had some understanding of Hebrew”.
You are an idiot. A blind fool.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 am
great list. wasn’t expecting the one about the spanish inquisition.
sorry, couldn’t resist…
it seems a bit odd to blame the current recession on too much regulation, though. there certainly hasn’t been any sort of discussion here in the uk of allowing the banks more freedom (not that i know of anyway).
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 am
@Anonymous (21): Are you retarded? Hebrew isn’t the only Jewis language… Is it impossible that Jesus spoke the language that was use in Israel at the time?
You’re obviously very over-protective of your Jew friends because they’re picked on or because Hitler killed them. I don’t really care why, just take your hate somewhere else, or at least express it at a reasonable time.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:19 am
@Aaron (3): You’re exactly right.
@jfrater (8): It took ages from when the banks started selling these crappy home loans to when the economy was actually affected by it. How can expect bailouts to magically fix everything up in the blink of an eye? I tell you what, I’d prefer higher taxes and some national debt to financial institutions failing. The very nature of the current problem means that those institutions are what is going to drag us back out of this mess.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 am
I’m slightly confused. On a list where the aim seems to be the dispelling of ‘misinformation and myths’, number one gives the impression that it’s a historical fact that a man named Jesus traveled around with twelve apostles and died on a cross. Surely these are some of the most towering pieces of misinformation around.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 am
Hey JFrater,
you’re very philellene.
Are you of Greek descent?
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:26 am
About #1: Assuming there ever was a Jesus. Of such a vivid figure there exists only two historic references outside of the bible, and they simply mention about a person named Jesus. So like there couldn’t be more chaps named as “Jesus” in the Middle East around that time…
There was no Jesus, and there probably is no God either. So stop worrying and live your life now because this life is probably the only one we’ll have. Amen.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 am
@Monk (26): I do love Greek culture but have no Greek blood that I am aware of
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 am
just to add a little more to the two egyptian one:
1) cleopatra wasn’t considered beautiful as some people still believe. she was actually quite average looking but very charismatic and a (supposedly) a great conversationalist. plus she was very intelligent and spoke several languages, though i forget how many.
2) the pyramid builders (or it might have been the ones who dug in king’s valley) staged what is believed to be the world’s first labor strike. they ran out of make up (which they wore to protect them from the sun) and wouldn’t work anymore until supplied with more.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 am
You’ve got it wrong. The regulated economic framework actually PREVENTED economic crises from happening, but the deregulation of the seventies and eighties has since led to more frequent economic crises.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 am
@Eyeswideshut:
So true, Jesus is never actually depicted near what he most likely looked like…A middle eastern man. Really grinds me gears. And then on the other hand I have people trying to tell me he looked african-american.
@Eric:
Socrate is known only through the writings of his students, yet how many people today deny he ever existed? Should we infer that all philosophy is also an illusion as a result?
I will agree though, we only get one shot at this life so it is very important how we live it.
Awesome list though
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 am
Eric. the name you would be looking for is ‘yeshua’ anyways.
Jesus is spanish lol.
and, altho im an atheist as well, please stop quoting busses. it makes you look like a douche.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 am
I have to agree with archiealt (25) and Eric (27). How can it be a historical fact when we can’t even prove Jesus existed? I’m sure there probably a few men named Jesus around at the time but if any of them were the son of god is another question.
@ Anonymous (21) – I think what Jamie means is that there was no single religion (the Old Religion) that the pre-Christian people all followed. People most definitely had some kind of spiritual beliefs.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 am
How does one exactly be a “Jew hating Jesus freak”? Surely this is an oxymoron loooool
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 am
Cool list, but regarding No.8 (Cleopatra), I have to correct you: Macedonian and Greek is not the same. Alexander The Great was Macedonian and he conquered the Hellenic city-states (there was no Creek nation and Greek people, only Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians…).
Later, by conquering half the world, Alexander did expand the Hellenic culture towards the east, because it was the dominant culture in the Balkans, which doesn’t mean that there was no ancient Macedonian culture or language.
And his general Ptolemay, who founded the Ptolemaic dinasty, was from Macedonia, not from the hellenic city-states. Therefore, Cleopatra was Macedonian.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Some great lists recently. Keep it up!
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 am
No old religion? I find that very difficult to belief due to the fact that there is evidence of people worshipping deities dating back thousands of years before Christianity. Although modern way Wicca may of been popularised in the 20th century, the roots are a lot older.
I also find it rather ridiculous that the number one on a list about historical facts is about someone who may or may not of even existed.
The rest of the list was interesting, but the first and last let the list down.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
@Kallias (37): There’s evidence of people worshipping deities… Interesting.
Yet you find No.1 ridiculous? Why? There’s evidence of his existance too.
A hypocritical atheist, who would’ve thought?
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:18 am
cool list!
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 am
@mark (38)
Just what evidence would that be?
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 am
I thought the whole concept of female amazon warriors was a myth. I’d heard about that one breast thing but I assumed it was a falsehood within a falsehood. Can anyone clarify for me?
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 am
@archiealt (40): As far as I know scholars have “reconstructed”, for want of a better word, Jesus’s life from multiple independent sources as well as the Gospels.
I’m sure there’s room for debate, and I’m in no way saying that I personally believe that he actually existed. But what Kallias said was hypocritical.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:39 am
Mark give me some evidence that doesn’t come from a fictional book.
And btw the Greeks considered Macedonia Greek but the Macedonians didn’t want to be so you can say it either way.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 am
@10 Paganism was practiced 5,000 years in Ireland.Is this not “old” religion?
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:47 am
Stizzy:
Of Socrates there exists tens if not hundreds of credible historical references.
But you are correct that some historic characters are believed to be real people who once lived even if they are mentioned once. So why does the nasty sceptics want more proof that Jesus once lived? Well, it has something to do with the being son of God, walking on water and the other tricks.
Lets put it this way: If you would say that you saw a bird that was thought not to live in your country, you would propably be believed if you can describe the bird in great detail to the experts. But if you would say that you saw a dragon, you will not be believed unless you have some heavy duty evidence. The more amazing your claim is, the more amazing your evidence should also be.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:50 am
@Abi (43): Wow… I don’t feel the ned to respond to you for some insane reason
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 am
the jesus figure probably did exist but he was just another cult/ofshoot leader with a small following in one small region until his legend was built up and was forced on the world by one emperor. jesus doesnt even claim to be a god. i knew them all.
the amazons arent proven to exist either and little is known about the pyramids construction
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 am
Jesus lived and walked the earth and now he sits at the right hand of His Father, from where he will come to judge all you morons who ever denied him. You will surely beg for forgiveness and mercy on the day He returns, but it will be in vain. You were born with the ability to reason and argue and you chose to waste it and believe in whatever you believe in, but you better wake up in time. And dont you dare say you were never warned.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 am
@Rina (48): Way to hand fuel to the HC atheists here. At least Stizzy is logical and intelligible about his faith, all you do is make inane inflammatory remarks.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Jesus did not speak Greek, people of that area like you said, spoke Aramaic. The New Testament was written originally in Greek. Most people around the social level of Jesus were illiterate> very unlikely to be versed in Greek.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:04 am
The Histories of Josephus are not works of fiction, nor are letters to Caesar depicting one Yeshua of Galilee and his apostles, and neither are census reports containing historical confirmations of biblical depictions.
No matter how you view Jesus, as Christ or madman, he was a historical figure.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 am
@48, Doesnt Jesus forgive all sins I you repent? Think I gonna life my life as normal and just before I pass I’ll repent… just to be safe
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 am
@archiealt (40): How about the fact that those who worship Allah also revere and speak of Jesus as a prophet? I know! It’s a Christian/Muslim conspiracy. C’mon even intelligent atheists don’t dispute the existence of Jesus – just his divinity. Gads.
@Kallias (37): There was no wide spread organized religion. Tribes who worshiped various fertility/war/whatever deities sure – but they differed from tribe to tribe and region to region. There was no one pre-christian, mother earth loving bunch of tree huggers prancing about in tune with their environment.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 am
@mom424 (53): I love you…
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 am
@Mark (54): Why thank-you.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 am
(Tongue in cheek)
BORING! Let’s have something really gruesome like the last few days!!!!
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:22 am
You forgot the one about Jesus being white with brown hair
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 am
Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet’s change the subject…
Good list BTW, I knew the Cleopatra one and a couple of others but at least I have learned something new today.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 am
people in america died of starvation during the depression. its no myth.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:29 am
Those of us males over 40 have a momentary heart flutter at the mention of Caligula. Those were the days.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 am
Your link to GDFL at the bottom is broken.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 am
@matclarke (59): A case in point…
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:38 am
The Myth: An Old Religion was practiced in rural Europe until it was stamped out by the witchcraft persecutions, which killed millions of women.
NOWHERE does it say that no religions existed in Europe before Christianity. Obviously some sort of religion has existed as long as man has been sentient.
So please actually read the list before you go crazy with your posts…
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 am
@ 22 WiseMenSay- NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:41 am
@Rina (48): This is exactly the kind of attitude that turns me off religion. I believe in God, just not too convinced of religion. How strong can your faith be if it is governed by fear? Tsk tsk…
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:45 am
Jesus spoke Aramaic, that much is for sure. (Just like many Jews speak Yiddish, for example). I understand that Hebrew was used in the synagogues and the Temple in Jerusalem, so he would probably be up on that language. That Catholic painting looks about as Jewish as my left shoe. (It also looks more like a woman wearing a crepe beard.) Over-regulating the economy is just as bad as no regulation at all. In fact, it gives those in power the ability to crash it at will by, for instance, mandating that no one regardless of their ability to pay can be turned down for a mortgage. And when someone questions that practice, those in power claim everything is fine, but when it finally crashes they simply change their story and pretend they were the ones warning about it. Oh, and if you play soundbites of their earlier denials, YOU are the bad guy. (Sssssh! Be vewy vewy quiet! I’m cwashing the economy and bwaming the wascally Wepublicans! Hawahawahawahaw!)
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 am
So the issue is #1. Lots of misinformation in it. First and foremost, as has been mentioned, it cannot be proved that Jesus was an actual historical figure so commenting on languages he spoke is a little like discussing what color unicorns are. Taking a leap you can figure out what someone like a historical Jesus would speak and Aramaic is the most logical choice. However, this is likely the only language he spoke as he was supposedly a peasant carpenter. No only would he not speak the aristrocratic language of the time, but its likely he would be completely illiterate. Only the wealthy would have the resources and time to learn to speak a second language or learn how to read and write.
@Rina (48): ‘You were born with the ability to reason and argue and you chose to waste it and believe in whatever you believe in, but you better wake up in time.’
Interesting that you bring up ‘reason’ to defend and completely unreasonable belief. Reason is a virtue that would steer someone away from such an illogical belief as our standard definition of God. You can choose to live your life in fear of a divine creator but there is no way you can argue doing that is reasonable.
@mom424 (53): One group of peoples belief in something unprovable that is similar to some other peoples belief in something unprovable does not constitute proof.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:49 am
Always a pleasure to read your lists, JFrater. This one was interesting. I didn’t know that there was even a myth about the Amazons like that. I did know the one about the Great Depression though. They taught in school that many people starved during that time, but my grandfather said that wasn’t true. He lived during that time and helped out as he was in the USMC. The teacher didn’t like that very much when I brought it to her attention.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
@ Eric (45):
Stizzy:
Of Socrates there exists tens if not hundreds of credible historical references.
But then isn’t what is considered a credible reference due to a matter of perspective? I.e many see the gospels and the Bible as a whole as credible historic reference to Jesus, yet another person (via bias) will dismiss it all as fiction. Could someone not do the same for Socrates’ credible references?
But you are correct that some historic characters are believed to be real people who once lived even if they are mentioned once. So why does the nasty sceptics want more proof that Jesus once lived? Well, it has something to do with the being son of God, walking on water and the other tricks.
Lets put it this way: If you would say that you saw a bird that was thought not to live in your country, you would propably be believed if you can describe the bird in great detail to the experts.
Alright, so who do you think would be the experts on God becoming a man and performing miracles? I’m assuming they would first have to assume such things existed to adequately evaluate any claims. Perhaps this could be analagous to the testimony of the prophets who would have “seen” Jesus before hand?
But if you would say that you saw a dragon, you will not be believed unless you have some heavy duty evidence. The more amazing your claim is, the more amazing your evidence should also be.
If the existence of dragons is questionable, who could you turn to as experts if no one has seen one? Indeed you could describe it in detail and give an account of what it did, it’s size, how it looked, where it was etc. But on what grounds would this evidence be accepted?
If you can’t even accept the “less amazing” evidence there is, what makes you think you would accept any more amazing evidence? Really, it seems that your point boils down to “He made incredible claims about himself and it’s said he did miraculous things, therefore I cannot accept it as these things are incredible and miraculous.”
This is of course with the only source of knowledge on incredible and miraculous things being that you’ve never witnessed either of this kind yourself. Would the eye-witness account of others be acceptable?
Let’s assume for a second He didn’t make incredible claims and back them up with miraculous actions, there would be nothing incredible or miraculous about Him. He would be generally ordinary.
Also, in your first example, you cite a bird described in great detail. Yet for the second, you simply say a dragon. What if someone described a dragon in great detail? What heavy evidence would be acceptable?
Let’s say the person who saw this dragon said that the dragon is no longer in the area they claimed to have saw it but has gone to a far off place. Let’s say the only evidence left behind of it’s presence are some foot prints. You may see these foot prints and say it was another, less incredible sounding creature and leave it at that or even that the foot prints have been fabricated.
You may not actually bother to follow the tracks to see where they lead based on this. If you assumed, for the benefit of the doubt, this creature did exist, perhaps you would follow the tracks and notice other evidence you wouldn’t have otherwise.
Indeed, Jesus’ life and His actions are described in great detail. It’s even said that all of what He did couldn’t actually be written down. So I guess it boils down to what “hard evidence” would you accept? Could we actually find hard evidence of His miracles and of His Godhood without Him actually being around to demonstrate it, or would we have to infer it from alternative sources?
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
Number 10 is kind of confusing. I am pretty sure it was saying either that 1) It is not true that the Old Religion was practiced until witchcraft persecutions stamped it out or 2) it is not true that modern day Wicca and Paganism is the same religion as the Old Religion.
“The Witch-cult is the term for a hypothetical pre-Christian, pagan religion of Europe that allegedly survived into at least the early modern period.”
Or, is it saying there was no religion in Europe before Christianity? The use of the word “hypothetical” in the above quote certainly implies that there is a good chance that there was no religion in Europe before Christianity. However, the author might just be implying that there was not UNIFIED religion in Europe before Christianity?
All of these myths are false, with the exception of there being no religion in Europe before Christianity. However, this is a list, and the myth that the author is disproving should be obvious upon first reading. #10 should be rewritten for the sake of clarification, because I have no idea what the author’s point is.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 am
@67:
So the issue is #1. Lots of misinformation in it. First and foremost, as has been mentioned, it cannot be proved that Jesus was an actual historical figure so commenting on languages he spoke is a little like discussing what color unicorns are.
If this is so, why did you then go on to speak in length about not only what language He would have spoken but whether He was illiterate as well? By your logic, isn’t this like discussing what noise a unicorn made and how unicorns communicated with other animals?
I also disagree that belief in God can’t be reasonable. I believe you can logically justify a belief in God and have consistent, rational motives for doing so. Many people, however, don’t know how to express their belief in such a way so the consensus is that it is impossible.
If there is no way to reasonable argue living in reverance of God, could someone not reasonably argue living in reverance of their King? Afterall, if you believe they have authority over you, care for your well being and have the power to punish you should you break the law, it would be reasonable to be reverant towards them.
Similarly, if somsone believes God is the ultimate authority, cares immensely for all creation, and has the power to decide their ultimate fate, I think they could reasonably justify living in reverance towards Him.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 am
G’day strangers. An interesting read today for me; but as a few people have commented, a number of the items could themselves be based on myth rather than hard evidence.
Take #10 for example. Since we really have no way of knowing just what the iron-age denizens were up to; and outside of archeological evidence there is no way to prove (or disprove) what they thought or did. To be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me if they all worshiped the Sun as their ‘God’ as this was the common notion of those times. Some still worship the Sun today. However, to hopefully clairify the point of the list, although there where those who honoured the forces of nature, they weren’t all witches and devil worshippers (mainly due to these concepts being invented LONG after those times).
Item #7 – again, it depends on who you believe. According to some sources, the Egyptions did use slaves as well as their own labourers.
Item #1 – and then we come to the big one. As soon as JC is mentioned, there are generally disagreements. I can clearly appreciate why as the evidence is sketchy – given that most of it has probably been destroyed in the intrim. I would suspect there is evidence to prove that his followers existed, and from that it might be possible to imagine they all wrote about the same bloke. However, he was a philosopher (to my mind) and all the myths of fishes and wine are quite overblown.
Paraphrasing the list item #1, JC may or may not have really known the rudaments of Hebrew and/or Greek (spoken or written) as well as his native tongue, Aramaic, and may or may not have been illiterate. I will also add, he may or may not have known Roman (Italian). Guess we will never really know for sure.
Hey Randall – I’m hoping this is your kind of list – any thoughts? (don’t all jump down his throat if he replies)
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 am
I think I already said this, but it appears nobody read it. Macedonians are not Greek. They had their own culture. I also noticed that Gore already mentioned it above and explained it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 am
@Gore (35):
“Cool list, but regarding No.8 (Cleopatra), I have to correct you: Macedonian and Greek is not the same.”
WRONG. At the time they WERE. Today it may be different, since in the ensuing centuries there have been invasions of Slavs and others who have penetrated into what is TODAY Macedonia, making modern “Macedonians” ethnically different from modern Greeks (who have remained far more homogenous) but 2000+ years ago, the THEN Macedonians were in fact very close cousins of the Greeks, and spoke a dialectical cousin of Greek. Their culture was also extremely similar. The Macedonians of the time were, in fact, considered to be like backward provincial Greeks. Looked down upon by the more cosmopolitan and sophisticated Greeks to the south—but Greeks, in all but actual name, nevertheless.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 am
OH gosh… even if you don’t believe in God himself… or even if you don’t believe that Jesus was God, there is enough historical writings (multiple sources in fact – even in Islamic texts) to state that Jesus (the man) was a real living person. Don’t start saying that Jesus the man didn’t exist just because you don’t believe in religion or God.
Anyway, awesome list! I find it funny how everyone thinks Cleopatra was Egyptian… but I guess everyone learns something new everyday! That’s what listverse is for.
Oh and with the economic thing… the current crisis arose due to too much ‘free market’. Having some regulation on the market is good… but of course, overdoing it, as with anything, is bad. Balance is the key.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 am
@mom424
Your reasoning holds absolutely no water.
Your argument, as i understand it, is this; Muslims also believe he existed. Now i really hope this doesn’t need to be explained, but, that does not constitute evidence.
There are no historical scholars who lived during the supposed time of Jesus, and there where many, who mention him in any of their writings.
Whether or not their was a historical figure who lived in the early part of the first century ,called Jesus, perhaps a visionary or teacher of some sort, we do not know for certain. It is definitely not fact.
So to mention him with full confidence at the top of a list that dealt with uncovering the truth behind many historical myths, to me that smacks of hypocrisy.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 am
Sorry but some of the “facts” are off on this list…try again…
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 am
74 Randall…
Agreed. Except, there is a slight difference between Hellenistic and Greek. Cleopatra was a Hellen(?), which cannot be disputed because Hellens include Macedonia and Asia Minor. As for whether she is Greek… she was a Macedonian indeed.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
@Lea (50):
WRONG. In fact it’s very likely that Jesus did, in fact, speak Greek, or was at least strongly aware of the language. To begin with, while Greek WAS the “high-falutin’” literary language of the day, there WERE in fact two “versions” of Greek in use at the time—one of them being a common, everyday-speech language which was in essence the all-around basic speech of many peoples in the East, under the Roman Empire (and beyond). This is because of the previous Greek empires (originally founded by Alexander the Great) which the Roman Empire swallowed up. Greek had been spread long before in a way somewhat akin to the way English has spread—as the dominant “cultural language” and for many it was, if not their first tongue, certainly their second.
Jesus was surely a well-enough educated man—the evidence for this is clear enough from the Bible. We can certainly say he was far from illiterate. As such, he would have of course spoken Aramaic–it being the primary language of the region—but there is no earthly reason why Jesus would not also have known at least SOME Greek, and probably a good deal. He seems to have been familiar with many Greek concepts, ideas, and even words–and this is not simply a matter of words being put in his mouth by later writers—scholars have shown that the kernel texts underlying the gospels as we have them now had a uniformity to some extent, and this includes a Jesus who clearly had some grasp of Greek language and even culture.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 am
In #8 Anthony Hopkins didn’t play Alexander. He played his tutor and the nairator to the story.
Otherwise a great list. I have to say my favorite lists are the ones about historical events or people. Keep them up and I will keep coming back!!
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
To add to what Randall said, I would even go as far to say that in the book of Acts, Jesus quotes a Greek play which would mean He would have known the language and likely attended the plays.
It’s also likely that He could have constructed theaters along with His father Joseph as part of their trade, leading to Him witnessing the plays.
This could be how He picked up the technique of taking Peters boat out into the middle of the river to speak to the multitudes, making use of accoustics that He would have seen in use at the theaters.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
I have to add my voice to those who have a problem with the “Fact” that there “was no “old religion” ”
What were the Mayans practising and the Native Americans or the Australian aboriginies. There were many “old religions” most who worshipped symbols found in nature.
How old is a “Old religion” how about Hindi?
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
@archangel (78):
Sorry, but WRONG. You may make the argument that while all Greeks of the day were “Hellenistic” but not all people who were “Hellenistic” were Greek, this argument is in fact irrelevant to the question. The ANCIENT Macedonians, of the day, WERE essentially Greeks. They were ethnically, culturally, AND linguistically very nearly the same. They had descended from the very same stock of Indo-European peoples who had populated Greece and the surrounding regions round about 1900 BC or earlier (dispossessing the prior inhabitants) and even the Greeks themselves acknowledged that the Macedonians were at worst “backwoods cousins” of theirs.
MOREOVER, you’re confused on your distinction of “Hellenistic” and Greek anyway—a HELLENE *is* a Greek. Hellene is the GREEK word for “Greek.” HELLENISTIC is a word which pertains to this AND the influence of the Hellenes. In strict archeological/historical terms, it refers to the period post-Alexander, when the Greek culture was spread beyond the Near East.
But you’re mistaken to think that the Greeks living in Asia Minor and elsewhere were somehow “not Greeks” but “Hellenes.” As I’ve already pointed out, these are one and the same, to begin with–secondly—the Greeks living in Asia Minor and elsewhere were all part of the same overall ethnic group that came to be called “Greeks” or “Hellenes”—either through direct settlement or later colonization. But all of these people, whether were dialectically “Ionian,” “Doric” or what have you—were in fact Greek/Hellene.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 am
@Randall (79): Thanks for your imput. I admit that ancient languages were never my strong point.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 am
Regarding number 69, “Stizzy,”
Excellent. Great question. What evidence would atheists who deny Jesus’s existence ever accept?
Okay atheists, it’s your turn. Ball’s in your court. What evidence WOULD you accept that Jesus was a historical figure? What would it take?
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 am
By the way, Jfrater, I enjoyed this list. Am I missing the references you use to back up your claims?
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 am
83. Randall
Hmmm… I wasn’t aware of that. I never disputed that Cleopatra was a Greek – I knew she was a Hellene but I just wasn’t sure how similar a Hellene and Greek was. If that’s the case, I withdraw my ‘difference between Hellen and Greek’ statement. Also, I never said that people from Asia Minor were not Greeks but Hellenes. If you noticed, I was careful with my language so as not to ascertain that.
Thanks for this clarification Randall. I truly learn something new from listverse everyday =].
Although 1 question… to what extent is Greek a civilisation rather than a culture, and Hellene a culture rather than a civilisation? Is there no distinction between the two whatsoever?
I’m just thinking about the peoples of the Indo-Asia (near India) who are of ‘Hellenistic’ culture from Alexander’s conquest. Would they be Asians of Hellenistic culture (or perhaps also Asians of Greek culture)… or Asians of Hellenistic culture but not Greek?
Forgive me if this question was confusing.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 am
@faketree78 (67):
DEAD WRONG:
“However, this is likely the only language he spoke as he was supposedly a peasant carpenter. No only would he not speak the aristrocratic language of the time, but its likely he would be completely illiterate. Only the wealthy would have the resources and time to learn to speak a second language or learn how to read and write.”
This shows the raging historical ignorance of far too many people out there in the world. Let’s leave aside the existence of Jesus–which I’ve defended before–and go right into these ridiculous, uninformed claims that he “had to be illiterate.”
What utter rubbish. It seems that many ignorant people, such as you, assume that most people, or at least the “peasantry” of the classical world were stupid, illiterate retards with just enough brainpower to do their meaningless, menial jobs and live out their miserable lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. IN FACT the Classical civilization of Greece and Rome—meaning the empires they encompassed–were CIVILIZATIONS—meaning that many people, perhaps even most, were educated to at least SOME extent and certainly could read and write the languages which were used throughout the empire. This was a civilization VERY MUCH akin to our own—including not only education (if by no means as democratized as ours) but comparatively high technology (for the time) and scholarship–as well as a high degree of technical and artistic skill. Jesus, as a tradesman (like his father and family) would have had AT LEAST a basic education and would have certainly known how to read and write. Aramaic would have been his primary language, but Koine Greek—the common everyday speech of MUCH of the Roman Empire–surely would have been his second language, and he very probably would have learned to read it as well. This is not surprising, as it was common.
As for this ridiculous assertion that “only the wealthy” can learn more than one language–that, I would assume, is simply American silliness and ignorance (I myself am an American by the way, but obviously far better educated than YOU)… it is QUITE COMMON for people in Europe, for instance, to know more than one language–as they are in close proximity to other languages their whole lives—certainly many of them know English, the “common language” of our day—just as Greek was in Jesus’ day. It was not a matter of “wealth,” but of simple cultural expediency and common knowledge.
As for the existence of Jesus himself, that would take far longer to go over and as I say, I’ve addressed this before. But I fully intend to come back to it. Needless to say, you and others who dismiss his existence are simply, again, showing your historical ignorance. (And by the way, I am no “Jesus Freak” or Christian nut…I am an HISTORIAN with training and education in the subject–especially ANCIENT history).
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 am
@darby (32):
agreed, darby! quoting bus slogans is almost as bad as quoting biblical verses to establish or reaffirm a point.
@archiealt (25): agreed!@Stizzy (31): you are right that Socrates is known by his students…but, uhm…well, I may be mistaken, but the Gospel was written at least 30-70 years AFTER the death of “Jesus” hardly a record of a living man. more like a very shoddy biography.
@Rina (48): what a mighty Christian thing of you to say! just belteing out, repeating like a little parrot, un-original ideas spoon fed to you by others…
@faketree78 (67): i love you. yes, i do. with my open atheist heart, i love you more than a Christian loves confusing, inaccurate, poorly-translated text!
JFray, i simply am enamored with the new posting feature!
rtr
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 am
To no. 89, ringtailroxy,
1) You’re sweet.
2) Good luck backing up your claim that the Bible and/or Gospel is “poory-translated”!
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 am
P.S. Still waiting for the atheists to show us what evidence they would accept …
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 am
@Ringtailroxy:
Well then it may interest you to know that the manuscripts that are available for Plato (from whom we know the most about Socrates) are more than several hundred years older than the time he is alleged to have written them.
In other words, the manuscripts for Jesus’ life are far more reliable for His life than the manuscripts for Plato are for his. Yet very few question his existence or the existence of Socrates.
Also, I would hardly call the gospels a shoddy biography.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 am
*correction, should rephrase. The manuscripts for Plato that are available were written several hundred years after the originals.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 am
Come on atheists…
We’re only asking you what evidence you would accept that Jesus historically existed — not anything else at this point. Not miracles, not claims — just existence.
There is far less historically remaining ancient written evidence that Julius Caesar existed — even though he and his followers claimed him (and other caesars) to be a god.
So please, for the sake of honest fairness, tell us what sort of evidence it would take for you to accept Jesus actually walked the planet?
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:18 am
As usual Frater – you have taken on obvious topics and mutilated them: Kleopatra (there was no ‘C’) was Egyptian.
Alexander was ruler of Egypt after his conquests followed by Philip Arrhidaeus and Alexander IV and then Ptolemy – supposedly a favourite general of Alexanders who “inherited” Egypt after Alexander died – however – the Kleopatra you refer to here was Kleopatra VII and Egypt had been under “Greek” (actually Macedonian)rule for over 60 years by the time she “suicided due to overdose of asp” -0 there were 15 Plolemies and 7 Kleopatras in that time and apart from the first two ptolemies ALL were born in Egypt – which makes them EGYPTIAN!
And for accuracy’s sake – the asp story is apocryphal and most reputable historians and archaeologists cast serious doubt on its authenticity.
As for the Inquisition – get your facts right. A great many more than 2000 people were actually executed by the Inquistition via stake, beheading, pressing etc, however – a great many more died under the torturer’s hands before they could be actually executed. Torquemada alone is said to have overseen the execution of over 500 people.
Secondly – the Inquisition was NOT aimed at Protestants: they were a target (when they could be targetted) however the major focus were the science community, the Jews and Musklims – so-called Pagans; Romanies; any civilian or noble who was “reported” and even their own religious orders; one of the more common targets were, in fact the Catholic religious orders which differed to that of the Inquisition: without checking my sources, I believe that the members of the Inquisition and the Office of the Inquisition were made up of members of the Dominican Order – so the Cistercians, Jesuits, Blackfriars etc were all “in the cross-hairs”
Why donh’t you give up your historical pseudo “expertise” and take up long-stitch embroidery instead?
AS for the others – they are Historical Facts which were corrected years ago and now replace the common knowledge which lked to the older fallacies being perpetuated so all you’ve done is inform people of facts they already knew!
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:21 am
@geoploomb (85):
hmmm…
i guess i would need the same evidence of a benevolent God concerned with human affairs.
as Christopher Hitchens said, in all of mankind, the amazing 140,000 years of human evolution, why did this creator deem it necessary to intervene in human affairs only within the last 6,000 years or so of civilization???
i am amazed at some of my classmates-i am in a veterinary program-whom, when learning of the amazing intricacies of the body’s working, especially of life on the cellular level, claim it is further proof of God’s existence, due to how well everything works in tandem! what???
it’s a very selfish thought to justify to oneself that the “creation” of the universe, the eons of evolution that led up to the modern era, was done for the sole purpose of benefiting mankind. and only certain individuals of mankind.
but that’s not all! all the “wonders” of our physical existence cannot compare to the wonders of the heavens upon our deaths…
uhm…bible thumpers…i have a grievance…
in Revelations, the believers only ascend unto heaven for a short time, while the earth is baptized by fire, and all non-believers and evil is cast into the lake of fire, so that a “New Jerusalem” can be created(Revelations 21-1 to 21-27). Amazingly, this “New Jerusalem” has construction made of such valuable human materials as gold, emeralds, topaz, & other precious stones.
i like how Christians say the Bible is “the truth” and should be believed verbatim…but only the parts they deem are to be valid!
so many Christians absently read the Bible, or disregard certain passages (like Lot’s drunken trysts with his daughters, who deceived him, and conceived the Moabites & Ammonites. God didn’t look poorly upon Lot’s incest, but he sure got pissed off with goings-on of Sodom & Gomorrah.) they just write it off as not applying in today’s day & age.
WTF?
why apply any of it to today? it was fables spread by word of mouth for many generations before being put on papyrus… a religion born by a nomadic, semi-literate people eking out an existence in a barren Middle-Eastern climate. of course they spoke of bejeweled cities, unending food, and punishment for brutal overseers…their struggle for life was beyond anything a selfish modern Christian could imagine!
i’m done for now. i’m just rambling, and sounding just as nonsensical as the very religion i try to avoid.
i love LV, i love debates, but i’m just religioused out. going to the beach.
rtr
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:23 am
Man. Religion always brings the crazies. Did anyone else notice there’s eight (count em!) other entries on this last that don’t mention Jesus? While in one of my literature classes in college, we studied some of these- cleopatra and the pyramids, and catherine the great later in the the course. I think it’s interesting how some of these become so widespread- look at the Catherine the Great one, for instance. That was no better than a high school girl telling her best friend that so and so cheerleader slept with so and so quarterback and now they both have so and so herpes. Society never changes.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:23 am
@archangel (87):
The question is not confusing to ME, but I can see where the topic can be confusing to those who don’t know about it and are unschooled in it.
To begin with, no, “civilization” and “culture” are not really meant to be interchangeable terms. Of course, it also depends on who you’re talking to and what you’re talking *about.* To an art historian the two terms are very different. To an archeologist they’re similar, but neither is really “scientific.” To a historian they’re very different, but their meanings are vague.
So first off, “culture” is perhaps easier to define. It’s the collective artistic, religious, linguistic, and historical (one might almost say “psychological”) elements of a particular group or society which can be said to be homogenous and shared within that group.
But this does NOT suggest “civilization,” since it can surely be said that many groups–the Vikings, for instance, or the stone age tribes of South America–have or had a “culture,” but they did not or do not attain “civlization.” Civilization, then, is that which suggests a presence of mind capable of not merely creating technology and art, but of advancement… and also has a sense of permanency, as well as a sense of the future. Of course, it *literally* means “life in a city,” and that helps too—civilizations build cities. But naturally it means much more than that. It’s a state of mind shared by the group overall. It suggests energy to produce and create, but also suggests a pooling of that energy to MAINTAIN and advance, and to foster the establishment and the continuance of systems and institutions which support the civilization in turn.
NOW… Greek culture can then be said to be whatever is Greek, pure and simple–art, food, fashion, language, religion, etc. Some cultures can be influential on others, to be sure. But in terms of your question, Greek CIVILIZATION is something else. It is Greek culture PLUS the actual institutionalization of Greek thought and influence INTO a system which maintained itself and managed its own continuance. In point of fact we call this civilization “Classical” rather than Greek, usually, because it later includes Rome and the Hellenstically-influenced cultures of the Near East and Middle East, as a result of the conquests of Alexander.
So—for instance, the people of the Levant–Hebrews, Aramaics, Samaritans, Philistines, Syrians, etc. etc. at the time were INFLUENCED by Hellenistic culture because they were first part of the “Hellenistic” Empire of Alexander—but they themselves were not actually Hellenes (that is to say, Greeks).
Do you follow?
Look at it this way. Here in the US we all consider ourselves Americans. Now, never mind that ethnically that’s kind of meaningless–let’s just pretend for a moment that there’s such a thing as “American” in the same way that in the classical period there was such a thing as “Greek.” Now… a couple hundred years ago, we began the conquest of this continent and subjugated the native peoples who had lived here before us. THEY are now, today, “American” in a very real sense—but they do not consider themselves “American” in the way those of us of European ancestry do. They have a different definition of it, or they dismiss it entirely. CULTURALLY we have influenced them–they speak “our” language, wear “our” clothes, use “our” cultural totems and products, etc. But they nevertheless consider themselves distinct.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 am
@geoploomb (94): I like your approach but I can’t imagine you’ll get many replies. If an atheist could point towards evidence which could change their views, they would probably not be atheist. Besides, there isn’t enough evidence in the world to prove a point like this once you take the Bible out of the equation – but then, you can never prove a negative either.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:40 am
okay..had to check on this once more before i left the house to plop my amble ass on a beach towel & gaze upon the Atlantic ocean for hours…preferably with a Hornsby’s in my right hand…
looky here…kinda amusing…
Back in 2006, an Italian judge ordered a priest to provide proof of the historical Jesus!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article784417.ece
okay all you happy people, be you theists, deists, or atheists. (even you cute little agnostics)
enjoy your cubicles, your classrooms, your kitchen counters & home offices. i’m off to frolic in the sun…finals are next week, & i need to clear the neurons out.
rtr
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 am
@Shagrat (95):
Sorry Shagrat, but when it comes to Cleopatra, you’re doing the mutilating of history here, not Jamie.
“Kleopatra (there was no ‘C’) was Egyptian.”
While technically correct that there was no letter “C” in Greek (and still isn’t), you’ve put your foot in your mouth anyway by not noticing the simple fact that whether “Cleopatra” or “Kleopatra,” BOTH are transliterations from the Greek alphabet to our own.
Now, in point of fact, using “K” instead of “C” might be more accurate in a sense–but since it’s transliterated no matter what, the point is actually debatable. What translators IN FACT rely on, instead, is a combination of latter-day accuracy and a dependence on TRADITION. Tradition says that we write “Achilles” rather than “Akhilleus”–the latter being “closer” to the original Greek, which “accuracy” might insist upon. But once again, as any professional translator will point out, this is still only a transliteration. CULTURALLY we are used to “Achilles,” and the bottom line is that it really does not establish any LESS the identity of the person in question, and in fact to transliterate it as “Akhilleus,” while satisfying the scholars in us, would only serve to confuse the rest of us. Hence it is not a settled question amongst translators–and never will be.
Cleopatra is a name known throughout the history of Western civlization, and has traditionally been transliterated as “Cleopatra.” Thus it remains. If you want true accuracy–use the Greek alphabet. Otherwise, sorry, but you’re snotty assault on Jamie Frater was off the mark—akin to a schoolmarm lecturing someone on a tiny matter of grammatical finesse.
As for Cleopatra being “Egyptian,” what you’re showing is more historical ignorance. Nation-states as we know them today did not exist in the ancient world. Therefore, the idea of “being born there” meant far less to the people of that time than it does to us. Sure, if you were BORN in Egypt today, you’re technically and legally an “Egyptian,” in a sense, anyway, even if you’re not at all ethnically the same as other Egyptians. I have a friend, for instance, who is “American” through and through—he’s lived here most of his life, his parents were born here, etc.—but actually, he himself was BORN in Morocco. He thus held Moroccan citizenship for a time, until he relinquished it. Legally, he was Moroccan, but in every other sense he was and is American.
In the ancient world this was not even a distinction. There were no nation-states to lay claim to a person’s citizenship based on birth. There were entities which we may call “nations” for lack of a better word, but they had no kinship to our modern definition of “nation” in a global/legal sense. Rather, people largely depended on your ethnicity, culture, language and so on, to determine “what” you were.
As such, Cleopatra and her family were never considered to truly be “Egyptian” in any real sense–they were Greeks, as direct descendents of the Greek ruling family (the Ptolemies) who had commanded the region (not only Egypt) upon the death of Alexander and the breakup of his empire.
You’re correct that there were many “Cleopatras” and “Ptolemies,” but this is not relevant—regardless of where they were born, they were Greeks and were considered Greeks by the people around them, by other Greeks, and usually by themselves.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 am
The biggest myth isn’t the language Jesus spoke, it’s that he existed at all!
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 am
@to_sam_ja (73):
“Gore” was wrong and so are you. See my reply right after yours.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:54 am
@ringtailroxy (100): I think I’m going to do the same as you Roxanne – on a concrete beach I like to call ‘the back yard’. See you guys anon.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 am
great list…..
i loved the one about cleopatra.
but i wuld like to kno if the myth about cleopatra being a hoe is ture? i mean, hey, there has been ALOT of guys shes been with, and the fact that she had like 20 kids.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 am
Interesting list, I really like history, I really like myths, so this is a perfect list for me!
Aramaic is really similar to Hebrew, though. I mean, I don’t know Aramaic – and it’s bound to be similar, because of the shared roots – but when I had to translate the Bible part containing “Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani” for Latin at school, I could basically translate it using my (very basic) knowledge of Hebrew. I was kind of proud of that =)
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 am
Well, I was going to go into a whole speech on the very probable existance of an actual person Jesus (whether you believe in his divinity is up to you) but I think the argument has been very well covered as it is.
What I dont understand is why people are so quick to dismiss the Bible completely. I´m not talking about taking what is says word for word but just look at it as a book. Does everyone really believe it´s a conspiracy of various nut-jobs all making up wild stories like some really old Superman comic book?
PS- Randall, it´s good to have you back!
****
@mom424 (53):
“There was no one pre-christian, mother earth loving bunch of tree huggers prancing about in tune with their environment.”
Thanks for making me spit out my coffee! That was hilarious!
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 am
jesus on the list = shitload of comments
btw. there is little (real) evidence that he actually existed
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:20 am
@Rina (48): amen sister. All these non believers better hope they are right. As I have said before believe what you want but don’t dis what I believe!
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:22 am
just a thought, but for cleopatra to be greek wouldn’t that require the other ptolemaics to only or mostly marry other greeks for about 300 years? i’m sure this is perfectly possible, just looking for clarification.
or am i being mythtaken?
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:28 am
I thought that the extra terrestrials built the pyramids.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:33 am
Not sure I like the wording of number 6: “No more than 2,000 people who were tried by the Inquisition were executed.” Even if it wasn’t in the tens of thousands, it’s still inexcusable. The author should consider rewording that statement, because it sounds like “it was ONLY 2,000 people, no big deal.”
Religion is the scourge of the Earth, and I can’t wait until it is completely eradicated.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
scraping a barrel of historical myths here none of these are even credible. not a good list at all what a let down after so many great lists b4.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
at AngryHuman (112) –> “it was ONLY 2,000 people, no big deal.”
lol, i was thinking the same thing. made me bust out laughing in class when the room was silent. hehe
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:46 am
Jeez there’s so much wrong here.
2. The Amazon boob myth? The Amazons are a myth entirely! If part of their myth is that they cut off their breast then so be it, but there was never a kingdom of women warriors. It was all Greek mythology, so the idea that part of the myth should be on your “Common Historical Myths” is misplaced. Put the Amazons on this list as the Historical Myth if you must, but I think most people know they were merely mythology.
9. On the Great Depression, maybe in the UK there weren’t any deaths because of starvation or malnutrition, but in the US many young children, elders and even some farmer adults died of malnutrition, which is different than starvation, yes, but has many of the same causes. The last sentence also is entirely inappropriate for this list. Are you trying to stir up controversy rather than just write an intelligent list? On top of that you’re just wrong. If you listen to Ayn Rand or Ron Paul, then maybe you’ll hear about how FDR was so bad, but if you listen to any credible historical economist he/she will tell you that the only reason we didn’t fall into a full blown recession is because Reagan, Clinton and Bush didn’t succeed in dismantling the whole of FDR’s plans.
7. Just because there were Egyptian craftsmen working at the Pyramids doesn’t mean there weren’t slaves also doing the grunt labor. They needed highly skilled men to craft the stone, but they also needed people to get the stones up to their place on the whole structure, and Ancient Egypt didn’t have that kind of population on its own.
6. The Inquisition may have “only” killed 2,000 in Spain (disregarding how many they tortured there), but they didn’t operate only in Spain. They came to the New World and tortured and massacred natives, the Portuguese brought them to India and tortured and massacred Indians, and all across Europe as Christianity was spread many Inquisitions were set up to try, torture and kill pagans, as well as New Christians they didn’t trust. So, yeah, the death toll isn’t as high in Spain as we always thought, but the death toll worldwide, as well as how many were tried and tortured is enormous.
I didn’t know the Spanish flu myth. So thank you for enlightening me on that.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 am
Great list JF, – you could post a list of 50 or 100 topics a day, but if it includes only one religious one, man o man it draws the vultures.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 am
geoplomb – simple. A historical account from a contemporary that does not come straight from the possibly biased New Testament or other religious texts. How about finding his name on a list of tradesmen, for example? One would assume a carpenter would show up on municipal record, even 2000 years ago. An inordinate amount of people here claim that “there is lots of evidence for the existence of Jesus” but only ONE of them, Steve (51) actually back their claim up by stating precisely WHERE such evidence can be found. The rest of you are essentially writing a paper without a bibliography – SHOW US THE SOURCES of all this evidence!
Remember, there are multiple texts describing the life and times of King Arthur and Robin Hood as well, and their actual existence is widely disputed. Socrates is also only known by the writings of his students, and as such these accounts are considered sensationalized to an extent, leaving us in doubt as to the true nature of the man. The difference here is that billions of people worldwide don’t follow their lives according to the supposed nature of Socrates.
archangel (75) – Islamic texts are hardly acceptable “proof”. Given that Islam was not created until circa 700 AD, these texts would have been at least 700 years post-JC. I’m sure I could author a number of texts on William Wallace, for example, based on some stories someone told me or a single book I read, but being that he lived over 700 years ago, they probably wouldn’t be considered all that factual without some mention of how the historical claims were obtained, would they?
On another topic – if Roosevelt’s policies are the cause of the current recession, then doesn’t that also mean that they were the cause of the relative prosperity of the 80’s and 90’s? I’d say this is one baseless argument.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
I would recommend “The Wars of Alexander’s Succesors” by Bob Bennett and Mike Roberts for anyone wanting to know more about Greeks/Macedonians and the rise of the various post-Alexander Hellenic polities including Ptolemaic Egypt, a subject not usually given extensive coverage in classical history.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 am
You are wrong in minimizing the suffering caused by the Inquisition. In addition to going after the Protestants, it also went after Jews who had forcibly been converted to Catholicism, who were suspected of secretly practicing Judaism. The Inquisition followed them from Spain to South America, even to the West Indies, bringing torture and death in its wake.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
wisemensay – 2 points – there were plenty of Greeks – the city of Alexandria was a jewel of Greek civilisation. Also, the Ptolemies practiced the ancient Egyptian tradition of keeping the royal blood pure by brothers marrying sisters – I’m pretty sure that ones not a myth at least according to the Ptolemy family tree on Wikipedia.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:16 am
@Randall(74):
I agree, Alexander did speak Greek apart from Macedonian and the ancient Macedonians were in awe of the Greek culture and religion (i’m a ‘civilization’ fan:-)), but only because Greek culture was dominant and overwhelming. But they did have their own language and own religion (their main god was Dios).
Of course, today’s Macedonians can’t be related to ancient (they’ve kept some interesting traditions, though), but I cannot agree that today’s Greeks are a homogenous nation who have kept their national identity for 2500 years! Impossible, if you consider the Barbarians, Slavs, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks and other peoples who roamed, ruled and populated the Balkans. Maybe this is a common historical myth (a controvertial one, though) for some next list
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am
@Stizzy (71): No, you misunderstood what I wrote. Taking what is accepted by some to be the time and place where Jesus supposedly lived, you can discuss what the language and class system was like during that time. I didn’t say what language Jesus spoke, I said what language people of that time and area spoke and the fact that poor people of the time were almost universally illiterate. Not once did I confirm anything about a historical Jesus.
Reason implies logic. You cannot logically prove the existence of God therefore it is unreasonable. Belief in God requires just that, a belief in something unprovable which is inherently illogical. That’s fine. Logic can’t prove the existence of love either so many people set aside logic to coincide with their beliefs. If this is you, fine. But your belief does not imply reason.
In your example you are comparing an actual person, a King, with a supernatural being, God. You cannot compare the two. People can live in reverence or fear or enslavement of a King but that King is an actual person who can do actual things in the real world, like tax you or kill you.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
if you like dogs
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 am
In your next list, the number one myth should be that deregulation caused the housing crises.
Government interferance caused the crise.
1-The CRA act in the 70s coupled with the demonization of so called “red lining” forced banks to give loans to people who could not afford them.
2- President after President made minority home ownership a goal regardless of the possible harm to the very home owners themselves and to their lenders.
3- President Bush put number two on streroids.
4- Clever bankers figured out that they could bundle bad loans and sell them as investments.
5- Number four gave banks even more incentive to make bad loans.
6- kaboom
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
@Gore (121):
Honestly Gore, you should quit while you’re behind, because you just keep digging yourself in deeper.
“I agree, Alexander did speak Greek apart from Macedonian”
AGAIN—there was very little difference between ancient Greek and ancient Macedonian. Ancient Macedonian was essentially nothing but a separate dialect of Greek. Macedonians and Greeks could easily understand each other, though the Greeks considered their Macedonian cousins to be uncouth and unsophisticated, and their dialect to be the same. In much the same way that we mock hillbillys. Nevertheless, we don’t speak of “hillbilly” being a separate language.
“and the ancient Macedonians were in awe of the Greek culture and religion (i’m a ‘civilization’ fan:-)),”
Good for you. So am I, but I also possess an advanced degree in this stuff and have taught it.
“but only because Greek culture was dominant and overwhelming.”
WRONG. Again, the Macedonians (of the times) and the Greeks were essentially the same people.
“But they did have their own language”
As I’ve already pointed out, this is not really correct. There were varying dialects but their language was not different enough to be considered a separate tongue in and of itself.
“and own religion (their main god was Dios).”
WRONG. This shows your simple ignorance of Greek. “Dios” is simply a transliteration of a GREEK word. And “Zeus” and “Dios” are, in fact, in essence the same word. In ancient Greek “Zeus” is pronounced “dh-ZAY-ohs.” “Dios,” obviously, sounds very, very similar “dh-ee-ohs” and the meanings are in fact exactly the same.
“but I cannot agree that today’s Greeks are a homogenous nation”
I never said they were. You didn’t read carefully. I said they were MORE homogenous than, for instance, other peoples in the Balkans. That’s all.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
I’m a bit late here but I didn’t mean to come across as hypocritical. I was only pointing out that people did worship deities long before Christianity, I didn’t say what they were believing was necessarily real, I was saying there was evidence for it. Which is exactly what number one is doing…
Ookay now that I think back I realise that I did sound like a hypocritic, so apologies for that. It was early, so I’m sticking with that as my excuse
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Oh, and Mark, number 38, I’m not an atheist
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 am
@faketree78 (122):
You’re repeating your error:
“…I said what language people of that time and area spoke and the fact that poor people of the time were almost universally illiterate.”
And so you clearly didn’t read my comment directed to you earlier. So I’ll repeat it:
@faketree78 (67):
DEAD WRONG:
“However, this is likely the only language he spoke as he was supposedly a peasant carpenter. No only would he not speak the aristrocratic language of the time, but its likely he would be completely illiterate. Only the wealthy would have the resources and time to learn to speak a second language or learn how to read and write.”
This shows the raging historical ignorance of far too many people out there in the world. Let’s leave aside the existence of Jesus–which I’ve defended before–and go right into these ridiculous, uninformed claims that he “had to be illiterate.”
What utter rubbish. It seems that many ignorant people, such as you, assume that most people, or at least the “peasantry” of the classical world were stupid, illiterate retards with just enough brainpower to do their meaningless, menial jobs and live out their miserable lives. Nothing could be further from the truth. IN FACT the Classical civilization of Greece and Rome—meaning the empires they encompassed–were CIVILIZATIONS—meaning that many people, perhaps even most, were educated to at least SOME extent and certainly could read and write the languages which were used throughout the empire. This was a civilization VERY MUCH akin to our own—including not only education (if by no means as democratized as ours) but comparatively high technology (for the time) and scholarship–as well as a high degree of technical and artistic skill. Jesus, as a tradesman (like his father and family) would have had AT LEAST a basic education and would have certainly known how to read and write. Aramaic would have been his primary language, but Koine Greek—the common everyday speech of MUCH of the Roman Empire–surely would have been his second language, and he very probably would have learned to read it as well. This is not surprising, as it was common.
As for this ridiculous assertion that “only the wealthy” can learn more than one language–that, I would assume, is simply American silliness and ignorance (I myself am an American by the way, but obviously far better educated than YOU)… it is QUITE COMMON for people in Europe, for instance, to know more than one language–as they are in close proximity to other languages their whole lives—certainly many of them know English, the “common language” of our day—just as Greek was in Jesus’ day. It was not a matter of “wealth,” but of simple cultural expediency and common knowledge.
As for the existence of Jesus himself, that would take far longer to go over and as I say, I’ve addressed this before. But I fully intend to come back to it. Needless to say, you and others who dismiss his existence are simply, again, showing your historical ignorance. (And by the way, I am no “Jesus Freak” or Christian nut…I am an HISTORIAN with training and education in the subject–especially ANCIENT history).
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am
@Bubette Duponte (30): You are right. Reagan’s policy of de-regulation is the reason that we are in the mess we are today. It has been shown many times that a bunch if greedy people run a lot of these industries, and cannot be depended to police themselves. De-regulation also crippled the airlines industry.
As far as the great depression, Roosevelt did many things to help pull the country out of poverty. The Work Projects Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps are just two of the programs he instituted, and they should be started again today.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 am
Moist! I thought that this list was going to whomp big time, but it’s a-okay. The next time Lawson and I are playing kickball I’ll think of this list.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
How do u Pronounce Deity? somebody help me please.. thanks
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Can someone come up with a list of the top 10 annoying ads? The smileycentral ad on this page and all listverse pages that yells “hello!” every time I refresh will easily make top 3.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
@ Randall
I’m impressed by your knowledge of ancient Greek history. I’m Greek and you probably know more than me.
On the Greek – Macedonian subject I have to say that we and FYROM (Greeks don’t recognize the Macedonian state by that name) are very much biased from what we’ve been taught our whole lives. Can you recommend me a good archeology book written by someone not biased?
As far as I know Macedonia is a geographical area divided in two countries, Greece and FYROM (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia). The Greek Macedonia (southern part) is a district a bit like what Florida is to the USA. And FYROM (northern part) is another part of that geographical area.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Bible stories are way to fantastical to be reasonably believed. I think that back then, people believed in anything, just like we do today. Very few people actually seek the “truth”. Back then, or today.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
Raiden (131)- It’s like “day-ity”
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
This is a fairly controversial list, I see. How unfortunate that people feel the need to show their ignorance by trying to show how much smarter they are than the list author/other people in the comments. But I have to say that it is almost as entertaining to watch the debates as it is to read the lists sometimes. :p
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
@magdalena (133):
Thanks—ancient Greece in particular has been a passion of mine since I was a boy. I have a tiny bit of Greek in me—one my ancestors came from Calabria, in Italy, and he, in turn, had Greek ancestry from there.
As far as an archeology book to recommend—do you mean one that addresses, specifically, the history of the ancient Greeks and the ancient Macedonians, and their relationship? I can’t think of one off the top of my head that does that *specifically,* but there’s so many great books on the archeology and history of the ancient Greeks that I could recommend…. let me look into my library at home and I’ll see what’s best. Just thinking about it for a moment, there’s DH Kitto’s “The Greeks,” and Moses Finley wrote a few also, of course… but whether any of these specifically address the Macedonians in particular, I can’t recall. And these are more surveys than actual archeological texts. Let me see what I can come up with.
Yes, I do know that present-day Macedonians like to deny that they were ever “Greek,” and prefer to claim Alexander as their own, as “strictly Macedonian.” This is merely typical Euro nationalist bluster.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Oh, and this has been bothering me, so I figure that I’d better ask someone who clearly knows their history- Randall, did Amazons really exist and what is the story on them? I’d kind of like to believe that there were some ass-kicking ladies in those days.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:00 am
Haha, I’m almost expecting an answer that goes, “Yes, Kage, there is a Santa Clause”.. LOL
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Kage:
Sorry to disappoint you, but there’s little historical evidence to suggest that a people called “Amazon” ever existed in the ancient world, let alone the matriarchical warrior society of legend.
On the other hand, they certainly seem to have a place in Greek mythology going back to the Bronze Age–and Herotodus, the Greek historian, mentions them as apparently real, in his Histories. (Herotodus can’t always be trusted, though he’s far more authoritative than old-time critics have led us to believe). One can’t entirely rule out a tribe of female warriors—but it seems unlikely that they ever actually existed.
The theory is that they somehow got confused with the Scythians, who definitely were a real people who lived in the area northwest of greece, beyond Thrace. Some accounts place the Amazons there, and it’s not surprising that they may have been confused at some point–the Scythians were long-haired and sometimes went beardless, and it’s also quite possible that they fought alongside their women. The Scythians were “barbarians” as far as the Greeks were concerned, but at varying times they had good-to-fairly friendly relations with them, based in part on their shared love of freedom and in part on certain artistic/cultural elements. (The Greeks had a fondness for Scythian art, which was crude compared to their own but nevertheless of high craftsmanship). They shared a mutual dislike for the Persians as well.
Whether the Amazons were actually the Scythians we’ll probably never know—but there’s no particular proof that the women warriors ever actually existed.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Well, boo. Oh well, there are plenty of women in history that were ass-kicking soldiers, too bad most had to dress like men to do so.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
@Randall (142): Thanks for that answer man i honestly found it very informative.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I remember reading somewhere that the Amazons were called upon to help defend Troy.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Sarmation women were thought to be amazons and it was said that when a girl was born they would put a hot bronze iron on her left breast to hinder its growth. So it would explain the amazons.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@Karl (2): and egomania.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
I have to agree with other comments made about number 10. And would add that it would seem that it would be wise to confirm or explain what you mean by “old religion” with regards to it existing or not!
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Of course there are Amazon women. Haven’t you ever seen the movie Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death?
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@Anonymous (21): Jesus probably did speak fluent hebrew. He wouldn’t have been able to quote scripture otherwise. HOWEVER aramaic was the street language of the region (much like eastern european jews speaking yiddish) and so he most likely taught most of his sermons in aramaic so that the common man could understand him.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@archiealt (25): ahem jesus almost certainly existed. anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. AND he almost certainly was crucified. I think the romans kept records of these things.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Elohi Elohi lama shabachtani? That is hebrew! sorry buddy but your wrong. But you are right that Jesus also spoke Aramaic.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
@Rina (48): HONEST TO GOD MAN!! Do you TRY to make CHristians look like a-holes??? What people need isn’t someone saying “Hey you’re doomed and im not nah nah nah nah nah!” they need convincing! i wouldn’t believe in God if i didn’t see some viable proof! why should they??
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:09 pm
@Randall (128): Its amazing to me because I have a different view for something that is under dispute that you consider me ignorant. I could be just as well read on the subject as you since there are differing opinions on the subject.
The times of Jesus’ supposed existence is not on par with our current civilization. School is virtually mandatory for children these days. It was not during the times of Jesus. It was only necessary to learn the family trade during these times. If Jesus was trained as a carpenter, there is no reason for him to have learned to write. In the bible is states when Jesus was young he learned to speak, then learned to play, and as a young adult, learned the family trade. Nowhere is anything mentioned about his education. And more to the point, NOTHING has even been found or written that would prove otherwise. There isn’t a Gospel of Jesus. There are no instructions to his followers on how to continue his ministry. In fact, the first bible was written in Greek, not Aramaic. Why wouldn’t Jesus’ direct followers write down his ministry? Because they were likely illiterate too.
To assume that in a civilization like the Roman or Greek empires everyone had some form of education is unfathomable. The world now is in the greatest technological revolution it has ever seen. Information is available at a moments notice. Yet, there are still people that are uneducated and functionally illiterate. For most people not of the wealthy class, it was not required and usually not even necessary to learn to read or write.
I’m sorry but denying the existence of Jesus is not an ignorant premise as it is also a highly debated topic among biblical scholars today. There are many intelligent, studious people on both sides of the argument. That being said, there is nothing conclusive proving his existence like anything in his own words, or anything in his own words second hand, or documentation of his arrest and execution, or documentation of him being expelled from the jewish temple, or anything like that. The most ‘evidence’ comes from one single book that has been fabricated over hundreds of years and a few mentions of someone named Jesus or Yesuah in secondary sources which would be like the name Daniel or Michael or Robert today, very common names.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
@Looser (151): Yes, the Romans sure did keep records of their trials and executions. Which begs the question I just posed, where is the record of Jesus’ arrest and execution? There isn’t one. Know why? Read my post above.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
My grandfather helped to eke out a living for the family by selling “urban venison” sandwiches at the Wichita train station during the depression. Urban venison being RAT MEAT!
Ewww….I just realized that grandma had to be the one preparing those sanwiches!…YIKES!!
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Regarding list # 9, “the replacement of a hands-off approach to the economy with a more regulated one by President Roosevelt has been blamed by many for the current economic crisis,” This statement is naïve, simplistic and biased. Deregulation is more likely to be one cause of the current recession. Economic events can’t be pinned solely on political leaders. Business practices, financial institutions and outside factors all contribute to economic crisis.
In the USA the current recession has been attributed to the housing bubble (which is a rapid increases in property value until mortgage payers can’t keep up because actual income doesn’t enable people to continue to pay), and the sub prime mortgage crises (extreme rise in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures). This has been attributed to lax lending standards by lending institutions.
Although it is correct that the US government encouraged granting mortgages to people who were not financially qualified, the unchecked greed of lending institutions and the insurers who guaranteed them accelerated the problem.
There are numerous other contributing factors such as: engaging in two absurdly expensive wars; energy costs (fuel is needed in the manufacture and transporting of produced goods); loss of faith in the economy leading to lack of investing and spending; excess supplies of produced goods combined with decreased consumption of goods; and so on. These problems lead to loss of jobs; collapse of financial institutions like Bear Stearns; bankruptcies, and so on which in turn contribute to the original causes of the recession, thus creating a vicious circle.
I realize that I’m no finance expert and my short essay here doesn’t begin to explain recession, but neither does blaming a depression era US president.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
faketree: first of all, heads up. if you don’t know much about randall, i’ll let you in on some secrets.
he argues about many things and has opinions on even more. the ONE topic you want to avoid in discussions in the ancient world, ESPECIALLY the greeks and romans. you can bet a rebuttal is being crafted right now and it will not be with kid gloves.
as far as your argument goes, lemme point out some holes…
you say you want first hand or second hand information. you can find these sources in every hotel room in the world (seemingly). i bet you have these sources at your house. if not, you can go to any number of different websites to look at these sources. i’m speaking of the Bible of course.
you say this is “one single book that has been fabricated over hundreds of years” with “a few mentions” of a guy named Jesus.
first off, it isn’t one single book. it is 66 separate books brought together into one volume. but let’s just look at the New Testament since that is the relevant material about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. this is 27 separate accounts of the life, times, teaching, ministry and interactions of Jesus. these are all first or second hand testimonies.
and to say that there are just “a few mentions” is to grossly underestimate the unified story of those books. that is like saying the lord of the rings trilogy has a few mentions about some golden ring.
if you want to have a reasonable discussion, please come with something more than this.
and, just to reiterate, heads up.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@faketree78 (154):
Your “different view” is NOT based on knowledge of the subject–therefore I called you “ignorant,” and I repeat it. “Different views” aren’t valid if they’re ill- or un-informed. As yours is.
“Its amazing to me because I have a different view for something that is under dispute…”
To what are you referring? I called you to task specifically on account of your ridiculous remarks stating that most people in the Classical period, living in the Roman Empire, were illiterate. That’s not “under dispute,” that’s just an “opinion” based on pure ignorance. It’s wrong, and there’s no “debate” or “dispute” about it.
If you’re referring to the existence of Jesus as an historical figure, that’s something else, but this is still not “under dispute”—not by any accredited or recognized historian that I’m aware of.
“I could be just as well read on the subject as you since there are differing opinions on the subject.”
Again, A) there in fact are NOT “differing opinions” on these subjects, except those opinions held by the ill-informed. B) you most certainly are clearly NOT as well-read as myself, since you aren’t aware of your egregious errors and spoke so absurdly on topics which you obviously have no authentic knowledge of.
“The times of Jesus’ supposed existence is not on par with our current civilization.”
This is a ridiculous statement. Naturally comparing the modern world to the Classical is silly. I never said the two were “on a par.” But the mistake you make is not at all understanding the NATURE of classical civilization. It was not populated by a vast mob of illiterate louts run by a small minority of educated elitists. Civilizations don’t endure on that basis.
“School is virtually mandatory for children these days. It was not during the times of Jesus.”
I made a point of saying that education was not democratized, in the classical world, the way it is in ours. Nevertheless, this is not the same thing as saying that most people were illiterate and incapable.
“It was only necessary to learn the family trade during these times. If Jesus was trained as a carpenter, there is no reason for him to have learned to write.”
This is where you show your ignorance.
In point of fact there are many records of common citizens–particularly those in trades–who were required to use writing as a basic component of holding the status which they held, and did so, in the classical world. The skills to read and write were taught in an instutional sense to many, but taught as part of a system of apprenticeship and “work-study” to many more. Hebrews of the day were in fact fairly well-educated and most probably knew how to read and write. This was certainly true also of most other citizens and subjects of Rome.
“In the bible is states when Jesus was young he learned to speak, then learned to play, and as a young adult, learned the family trade. Nowhere is anything mentioned about his education.”
So? So your argument is that if the Bible didn’t mention it, it didn’t happen?
And in point of fact the Bible does suggest more than once that Jesus was educated. It makes it pretty clear that he understood Greek and was aware of Greek philosophy, and it states that he was certainly knowledgeable enough in regards to Hebrew scripture. None of this would have been capable without an education.
Jesus, in fact, came from what was probably a fairly-well-off family of tradesmen, and there is no reason to think that he was not formally educated at least to some extent, since anyone else of his status would have been so.
“And more to the point, NOTHING has even been found or written that would prove otherwise. There isn’t a Gospel of Jesus. There are no instructions to his followers on how to continue his ministry. In fact, the first bible was written in Greek, not Aramaic. Why wouldn’t Jesus’ direct followers write down his ministry? Because they were likely illiterate too.”
And again, this further shows your complete ignorance.
What we have today, faketree, is not the original version of the gospels—scholars have in fact long since established that the four gospels of today can be traced back to far earlier texts–two that we know of, possibly going back to one original source text–that COULD, indeed, take us back to the generation of the apostles. Moreover, there are other writings that were “unrecognized” by the church a few hundred years later for various reasons, that have since been found to be associated with this source material, and can again be traced back to a time earlier than the present gospels as we have them.
In short, you’re wrong again, and there were almost certainly writings which preceded the present Gospels. Furthermore, we have the fact that Paul clearly wrote, and he was not removed from the original apostles at all. That his writings survived while theirs, if they wrote, did not, means nothing to the argument at hand.
“To assume that in a civilization like the Roman or Greek empires everyone had some form of education is unfathomable.”
All right, listen up jackass.
A) I “assume” nothing of the kind. I never said EVERYONE had some form of education—I said that perhaps MOST did.
B) I “assume” NOTHING, anyway. I was SCHOOLED in this material. I have TAUGHT it. I don’t make “assumptions,” pal—I speak on authority.
“The world now is in the greatest technological revolution it has ever seen. Information is available at a moments notice.”
Yeah, no shit. But this was not at all true one hundred years ago. Would you argue then that OUR civilization TODAY is therefore far superior to that then? “Superior” perhaps, though that’s subjective to some extent. We have superior technology. But greater technology and greater AVAILABILITY of information does not in and of itself make us superior on all levels.
Similarly, while classical civilization certainly had its faults–and they were legion—it was not, as I have repeatedly said, simply a gigantic cipher populated by illiterate idiots.
“Yet, there are still people that are uneducated and functionally illiterate. For most people not of the wealthy class, it was not required and usually not even necessary to learn to read or write.”
Okay, that does it. I DEMAND that you back up this statement with PROOF—with EVIDENCE that people “not of the wealthy class” were automatically illiterate in the classical world.
You have no basis for making that statement and IN FACT it contradicts clear evidence that says otherwise. You’re not speaking with any authority, you’re simply parroting bullshit that you “feel” must have been true about the classical world, because you have in your head an image, probably, of a vast multitude of ignorant savages ruled over by an elite minority. That’s RUBBISH, pure and simple.
“I’m sorry but denying the existence of Jesus is not an ignorant premise as it is also a highly debated topic among biblical scholars today.”
OH IT IS? SHOW ME these “biblical scholars” who debate the existence of Jesus. NAME THEM. Who are they?
“That being said, there is nothing conclusive proving his existence”
IN FACT, faketree, there is little or no “conclusive” evidence proving ANYONE’S existence at that time unless they were a ruler or some other powerful personage. Are we to deny everyone for whom we don’t have verifiable personal writings or whose name doesn’t appear etched in stone somewhere? By your logic, we should.
You also seem to (conveniently) forget that there was a little incident which we know as the FALL OF CLASSICAL CIVILIZATION which led to the loss of MOST EVERY KIND OF WRITTEN RECORD there was—not only literature (most of which is tragically gone) but writings of EVERY kind. We have less than a TENTH of what existed BEFORE the fall of Rome, even to this day.
You cannot take an absence of material as proof that someone of the time did not exist, therefore. Neither, of course, is it proof that any particular person DID exist.
But the very idea that a personage such as Jesus could have been invented out of whole cloth, and swallowed by the multitudes only a short time after his “fictional” life and death is RIDICULOUS. There is NO evidence AT ALL of ANYONE denying his existence, when in fact it would have suited the purpose of many to do so (had he actually been fictional). And the loss of writings and records is no argument for this—there is enough left showing that the Romans as well as Hebrews of the day openly bought the existence of Jesus without the slightest doubt or skepticism. He was, in short, clearly well-known and accepted as real. Had he not been so, SOME indication would have survived that SOMEONE was calling him into question. This was, after all, a figure of some importance, even in the early days following his supposed life.
What we in fact have is evidence that many who were concurrent with him DID write about him, even if the text themselves are lost–and NO evidence contradicting his existence, which would be expected if anyone had ever suspected that he was simply “made up” by some group or other.
People who deny the existence of Jesus ALWAYS have some axe or other to grind, some bias and/or some agenda. You don’t want to believe the guy was the son of god, that’s your business. Nobody says you have to. But HISTORY strongly suggests the man was a real human being, and in fact to most scholars it’s simply accepted that he was, because we know that the classical civilization he was part of was no more capable of simply “making up” such a figure than it would be for us today to do so.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
i told ya.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
@DiscHuker (160): Nice one.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
@geoploomb (85):
A body.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I think you need to list all your sources… seriously. There is ample evidence there was an old religion before Christianity. One which Christianity boldly drew upon to incorporate new peoples into the fold.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
@Randall
“IN FACT, faketree, there is little or no “conclusive” evidence proving ANYONE’S existence at that time unless they were a ruler or some other powerful personage. Are we to deny everyone for whom we don’t have verifiable personal writings or whose name doesn’t appear etched in stone somewhere? By your logic, we should.”
Deny no, but doubt their existence – yes. How is there any problem in that? How does me doubting your BFF’s existence have any effect his actual existence?
It is possible he did exist. It is possible he did not.
It is also possible that the only reason you are alive is because you think you are alive. The only thing you know is that you do not know anything.
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
just loving the comments tonight
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
@Randall (157):
ah Randall…you are, in the words of my Georgia father,
“A Long Drink of Water”
which is a compliment.
i may have blindly assumed that a historical Jesus, existing in Roman times & crucified, may not have existed.
now, my thinking has changed…a little.
let’s say he really was aother living, breathing man. okay. aren’t all tall tales, legends, & folklore usually based in some wee part upon truth & real people?
rtr
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@Randall
O.K Randall, lets get this out the way first. You my friend are unquestionably a cunt. No two ways about it, anyone who would ever say;
‘I don’t make “assumptions,” pal—I speak on authority.’
is clearly a cunt.
Secondly, could you PLEASE stop SPORADICALLY using caps lock when ever YOU feel the situation warrants it. IT is a very childish and, ABOVE all, annoying way to go about THINGS.
Lastly, the condescending way you talk to people is enough to make me want to burn my eyes out. I’d imagine you walk away from writing all these very well researched, very funny little rants you go on feeling very smug and patting your self firmly on the back, ‘well done me, i showed those philistines just how ignorant they are and how supremely well read and godlike i am’. You are some guy who posts on a site that deals with top ten lists, nothing more, so please stop talking as if your gods gift to history.
As one last point, just because you are unaware of, or apposed to, one side of the argument it does not make it any less credible. Their are indeed scholars and writers who have questioned the historicity of Jesus with some credibility.
The great Bertrand Russel said of the matter:
“Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we do not know anything about him.”
Please read up on both sides of the argument before you decide to throw your two cents in.
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Randall appears to be one of those people who make me ashamed to be a Christian
Please, PLEASE, don’t let him mar your view of Christians
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Cool list
I think the comments are just as interesting- it cracks me up how totally riled people get over religion. All I can say is that anyone who doesn’t believe what I believe is just plain fucking wrong. Oh, and not I’m NOT gonna tell you what I believe, just take it as read than I am right
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Waaa-zaaaa!! Great List
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
@The Sea Captain (166):
I’m not a Christian, you twit.
And just why, while we’re on the subject, however, should you feel “ashamed” of me, anyway? Because I insist upon historical accuracy and scholarship over prattle and nonsense?
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Thats really interesting.
I love how “twit” has grown to popularity on profanity free message boards as a censor-safe insult.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@archiealt (165):
I needed a good laugh tonight, thank you.
“O.K Randall, lets get this out the way first. You my friend are unquestionably a cunt.”
A) And you, “my friend,” are most assuredly a douchebag. Only a douche would call someone a “cunt” on the slim basis you present here–and over the internet yet.
B) DON’T call me “friend,” asshole. My friends are learned, intelligent, well-spoken, broadly humored people who don’t bristle with offense over what someone they don’t even know says on the internet. Moreover, my friends are good, upstanding citizens, professionals in their fields, who have far better manners and judgement than YOU do, butthead.
“No two ways about it, anyone who would ever say;‘I don’t make “assumptions,” pal—I speak on authority.’is clearly a cunt.”
Oh? How so? Because in point of fact it’s the truth. I possess an advanced degree in the topic. I’ve taught it. I’ve WRITTEN on it. I have a library of authority on the topic on which to draw from, and colleagues who are as knowledgeable, or more, than I am on the subject.
What do you have? What did “faketree” have? Uninformed, off-the-wall opinions based on the slimmest of digested bits and pieces AT BEST. You, additionally, clearly have the fact that you are an asshole going for you. Your parents are surely proud.
Now listen up, jerk, before this goes any further. I realize quite well what you’re getting at. It sounds pompous for someone to say, “I know what I’m talking about because I’m an AUTHORITY.” But let’s get a couple things straight: one, I don’t give a shit if you or anyone else thinks me pompous. I’m not here to earn your love–I couldn’t care less. But what galls me is when some half-assed loudmouth, like faketree, goes around on the internet peddling their uninformed, inaccurate opinions as fact. It was, actually, **faketree** who started out speaking AS THOUGH from authority, by making the statements he/she made. Re-read his/her posts. Sweeping, conclusive statements made that clearly everyone else was just supposed to accept without question. And statements that I, as someone who has studied this shit EXTENSIVELY, knows to be dead wrong. I react thusly, and I feel entirely correctly. People like that need to be shown up for what they are—as do you. Big mouthed wannabees who want people to listen to their opinions without for a moment knowing what they’re really talking about, but at the same time not wanting to be questioned about it.
Make bullshit sweeping statements that masquerade as facts and I’ll call you or anyone else on it.
“Secondly, could you PLEASE stop SPORADICALLY using caps lock when ever YOU feel the situation warrants it.”
No. Request denied. How’s that?
“IT is a very childish and, ABOVE all, annoying way to go about THINGS.”
IN FACT, asshole, it’s used for emphasis, and done, when I do it, with panache, taste, and skill. You don’t like, too bad. I invite you most kindly to eff yourself.
“Lastly, the condescending way you talk to people is enough to make me want to burn my eyes out.”
Then do so; again, I couldn’t care less. My point here isn’t to make people think sweetly of me. It’s to correct errors and bullshit. Period.
“I’d imagine you walk away from writing all these very well researched, very funny little rants you go on feeling very smug and patting your self firmly on the back,”
You imagine wrong.
Like many a twisted little creep on this site, you think all this that I do to be about some kind of ego thing. I can assure you nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact I’ve grown deeply sick of having to straighten out the meandering BS of the odd jackasses who pop up on here spouting whatever nonsense has struck their fancy that day. As a former teacher it makes me sick at heart to witness the ridiculous crap that people will believe and/or defend with what little thought-processes they have. It’s depressing to see how badly the skill of critical thinking has slipped to the point where any idiot who reads a book or two thinks he/she knows a topic from front to back and can then render whatever concrete, unforgiving opinion on it he/she feels he/she has the right to render. No–not just the right–they seem to sometimes feel they have some kind of mission to render it.
It irks the hell out of me when people, as I said earlier, offer up uninformed opinions as fact. But I see more and more of it every day it seems, and it’s goddamn depressing.
Ego my ass therefore. I’m quite well enough assured in my private life that I know what I’m talking about, prick. I don’t need to come on here to massage my self-esteem. In fact there’s days when little bouts like this make me sick.
One last thing about this. There’s also something else lacking in people like you: a goddamn sense of humor. It never seems to occur to certain people that I write the way I do here out of amusement—an attempt to amuse myself and others. Surely not the object of my attacks, no. But you can bet your ass there’s people who get it. People on this site who know me, and in fact have spoken up here. But still there are twits like you who have about as much humor in them as a fencepost.
“As one last point, just because you are unaware of, or apposed to, one side of the argument it does not make it any less credible.”
A) I’m unaware of nothing. There is not a single *credible* scholar who campaigns against the existence of Jesus, and there is not a single credible scholar who would have let faketree’s assertions go unchallenged, about how most people under Rome were “illiterate.”
B) No, my thoughts on a particular side of an argument do make it less credible; rather, the evidence supporting that side–or lack thereof–is what makes it less credible. And in this case that’s exactly what we have. A side–faketree’s—without credibility because it has nothing going for it.
“Their are indeed scholars and writers who have questioned the historicity of Jesus with some credibility.”
NAME THEM. Oh, yes, you bring up Bertrand Russell. THERE’S a surprise.
Russell’s was, in many ways, a great mind. But he was about as credulous as you can get on certain topics—in short, he bought his own bullshit with eyes far too blind to see. I read him with relish when I was a teenager, and he formulated many of my beliefs at the time. But then later I grew out of him—as many grow out of such thinkers–in the old days it was men like HG Wells they grew out of, or beyond—because it becomes clear that he never really presented his scholarship with even the simalcrum of an open mind. I’m no Christian myself, but even I, by the time I was all of 20, could see the holes in Russell’s arguments and the way he’d never even delved deeply into his subject. He failed utterly to grasp any sense of metaphoric reading of Christ as a figure—which I never believed was a dishonest act on his part but rather one indicative of the kind of mind he had–purely literal.
At any rate, he never presented the slightest bit of evidence that Jesus never existed. He merely stated the obvious, that there was little or no proof of ANYONE’S existence in the classical world—just as, “archiealt,” there will be little or no evidence of YOUR existence only a couple generations after you’re gone.
“Please read up on both sides of the argument before you decide to throw your two cents in.”
A) I can assure you’ve read EXTENSIVELY “both sides” of this “argument,” clown. Further, I don’t need your coaching to do so.
B) I don’t “throw in” my “two cents” on topics of this kind. I speak what I know, having studied it *most of my goddamn life.*
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@Bbones (162):
WOW, “Bbones,” that’s *deep.* Think that up all on your own did you?
Pinhead.
And JC is NOT my “BFF,” kid. He’s an historical figure whose existence I defend because I myself am an historian and a well-read individual with a MIND that can think critically and select accurately between what is bullshit and what is not.
Now peddle your mealy-mouthed little philosophies elsewhere, shrimp.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
That second to last line in my post to “archiealt” should read:
A) I can assure you *I’ve* read EXTENSIVELY “both sides” of this “argument,” clown. Further, I don’t need your coaching to do so.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
@ringtailroxy (164):
Thank you, and I’m honored.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@Randall (157): I’m hesitant to respond since you choose to speak to me in such an inflammatory way. You seem to be well educated and have an excellent grasp of the time period we are speaking but I guess the education hasn’t translated into manners. And you are obviously just a reader and not a scholar or you wouldn’t argue in such a fashion. Anyway, I’ll just list some quotes so you can talk down to them, not me.
Despite your tone, literacy in the ancient world is a highly debated topic, as stated here…
“While the studies in this collection are far from the last word on an exciting subject, they are nonetheless state-of-the-art productions which, in conjunction with Ancient Literacy, considerably advance our understanding of the complexities involved in the study of literacy in the ancient world.” referred to two books, Ancient Literacy and Literacy in the Roman World that sit on either side of the fence of widespread illiteracy of the time.
“In Greco-Roman antiquity generally literacy was narrowly limited and heavily concentrated in the aristocratic classes. Although the levels and extent of literacy may have varied somewhat with period and region, in no ancient society was there mass literacy. Book culture was similarly limited, being contingent not only on literacy but also on the cost and availability of hand-produced books.” – Gamble ‘Literacy and Book Culture’
“Studies of literacy have shown that what we might think of as mass literacy is a modern phenomenon, one that appeared only with the advent of the industrial revolution. It was only when nations could see an economic benefit in having virtually everyone able to read that they were willing to devote the massive resources–especially time, money, and human resources–needed to ensure that everyone had a basic education in literacy. In nonindustrial societies, the resources were desperately needed for other things, and literacy would not have helped either the economy or the well-being of society as a whole. As a result, until the modern period, almost all societies contained only a small minority of people who could read and write.” – Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus
BTW, Bart Ehrman is a biblical scholar, since you wanted me to mention one.
“Levels of literacy were low in classical antiquity by comparison with those prevailing in the most educated countries of the last 200 years. That is entirely to be expected, for each society achieves the level of literacy which its structure and ethos require and its technology permits.” — W.V. Harris in Ancient Literacy
“Looking also at Roman Egypt with its intense official demand for documentation, A.E. Hanson (“Ancient illiteracy”) uses the evidence of papyri, incuding a selection published here for the first time, to examine how large numbers of illiterate and semi-literate people functioned in a world that required writing. What emerges from her analysis is the importance of social networks in enabling Egypt’s peasant and sub-elite population to participate in a stratified, bilingual society.” Hanson in Ancient Illiteracy
That should do it.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
On second thought, it probably won’t do it. I’m sure you have some kind of response. While the quotes may not have proved illiteracy in the times of Jesus, it at least shows that it is a debated topic.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
@archiealt (165): thank you for writing that. i began to smile as i was waiting to scroll down to see the response that was surely coming.
i look forward to what this is going to turn into.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
@faketree78 (152):
So, just to be clear: nothing in the Bible is even CLOSE to being a credible source of this existance (I´m not talking about his divinity here, just the fact that a human being named Jesus, who may or may not have been a crazy, delusional nut-case who called himself God, existed) because the Bible is almost like a comic book. It´s like a 2000-year-old Superman story? Did I get that right?
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Yay, thanks for the Xena image (#2)!
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
faketree:
So you think you Googled your way out of this, I see. Uh, no. I’m afraid not.
“I’m hesitant to respond since you choose to speak to me in such an inflammatory way. You seem to be well educated and have an excellent grasp of the time period we are speaking but I guess the education hasn’t translated into manners.”
Clearly yours hasn’t translated into humor, or for that matter an ability to critically approach a subject. YOU came on here and made DEFINITIVE statements that you clearly expected no one to question. Well your statements were AT BEST debatable and at worst purely disingenuous.
“And you are obviously just a reader and not a scholar or you wouldn’t argue in such a fashion.”
WRONG. But let’s ignore this little insult and correct you instead on something else. YOU seem to have mistaken this little List site for a scholarly journal. It isn’t. I therefore present quite a different persona here from what I have in the past, in a professional capacity. Reason: for amusement, entertainment, and because nine times out of ten it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. I’m not interested in debate here, I’m interested in correcting the BS of people who throw their half-assed opinions around as though they were fact. Which is what you did.
“Despite your tone, literacy in the ancient world is a highly debated topic, as stated here…”
SO NOW it’s “highly debated” is it? Backpedaling from your earlier statements—which were ENTIRELY DEFINITIVE. NOW you come at it with slightly less conclusiveness, now that I called you on it. NOW you’re qualifying. Uh huh.
And sorry, faketree, but a few quotes you managed, after several hours, to cough up from whatever hasty research you did online does NOT justify the statement that “literacy in the ancient world is a highly debated topic.”
YOU had made the sweeping statement that most people in the Classical world were illiterate. You as much as implied that the masses of the Roman Empire were uncivilized louts run by an elite. THIS IS IN FACT WRONG, and your desperately-thrown-together quotes here do not negate that fact.
But let’s clear another thing up here. I NEVER SAID that literacy was universal or even near universal in the classical world. I merely took umbrage at YOUR assertions that it was damn near unheard of. YOU started this with sweeping, over the top statements based on little or no real evidence. I CORRECTED you. Now you’re back with justifications and qualifications. Well this changes nothing. We know damn well from multiple sources that literacy of varying degrees was, if not common, common enough to be considered fairly widespread across more than just the aristocratic classes of ancient Greece and Rome, and their attendant empires.
AND I remind you that all this began also because of YOUR assertion that Jesus had to be himself illiterate–which was pure bilge. He demonstrated, in EVERYTHING that was reported about him, a wide degree of knowledge and learning that strongly suggests a man who had been educated to at least some degree and was certainly literate. You demonstrate an utter lack of the subject when you tried to assert, definitively, otherwise.
“In Greco-Roman antiquity generally literacy was narrowly limited and heavily concentrated in the aristocratic classes. Although the levels and extent of literacy may have varied somewhat with period and region, in no ancient society was there mass literacy.”
A loaded pair of sentences making broad and not entirely supportable statements.
Harry Gamble (if that’s whom you’re referring to) is an accredited scholar, yes. But a religious scholar–NOT an archeologist or historian. He and a small group have rendered the conclusion–based on slim evidence–that literacy in the Roman Empire was barely in the double digits. But his/their definition of “literacy” is selectively narrow–it is, in short, based on modern standards. As I said earlier, no one has ever asserted that literacy in Rome was universal or even close to it. But there is ample evidence that more than just the aristocratic classes were able to read and write–it in fact is almost certain that across the trade and merchant classes reading and writing were expected skills.
Moreover, Gamble’s interest is in Christian and pre-Christian Rome. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does he specifically address the literacy in the Levant, which was known to be quite high, nor in the pre-Roman periods when the Greeks were the dominant power in the Near East. The tradition of literacy in these regions and periods was passed down, and regardless of how it may or may not have been neglected under Rome, it still nevertheless existed.
Unfortunately I’m out of time and will have to return to this tomorrow.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@GTT (178): That is quite a way of putting it but yes, the Bible alone isn’t a credible source of existence. All the books of the bible refer to Jesus in the past tense. He was apparently long dead when these books and letters were written. There isn’t one document that has been found that was written while Jesus supposedly lived that mentions anything about a Jesus of Nazareth.
Yes, absence of proof does not constitute truth but the burden of proof isn’t on me. Its on those who seek to prove Jesus’ existence and as yet there is nothing definitive.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
@Randall (180): You win. Way to narcissistic to even discuss anything. If quotes from books written that dispute your views aren’t good enough to even consider the remote possibility that you could be in error of something, there’s nothing else I can do. Have a good night.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I’m disappointed. I expected some real misunderstanding and correction of history and people’s knowledge. All this stuff is either insignificant or the false information many people have is minor – so people didn’t starve to death during the depression but didn’t have enough food and searched the trash for food. Is there really a huge difference in the historical context? Point is people were suffering from hunger either way. And so, the Spanish flu is not from Spain, great, and the Panama hat is not from Panama. I don’t even want to start on the Jesus subject. This is a history lesson for kindergarten. No educated person can seriously be impressed by this B collection of so called facts.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Randall: I have said this in the past, a long time ago when I commented more often on the main site:
You are a treasure to the educated, open-minded members of ListVerse. I am always amazed that you will take the time and energy to respond to some of the commenters who make me want to scream and run away! Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Thank you for your love of the truth and for taking the time to put that truth out there for the rest of us to see. I laugh everytime someone loses it and calls you horrible names, because it’s their last “defense” when they are backed up against the wall. Keep up the good work.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
@archiealt (165): you, my dear, are a vulgar misogynist.
to call someone else a “cunt” is EXTREMELY insulting to the female half of our species. it is a noun that is used derogatorily to describe the external human female genitalia, and how such a beautiful, essential part of a woman’s body got associated with such a negative connotation is beyond me.
either way, you have defined your character to me by the use of this and therefore, i cannot take you seriously. your arguments are moot & you contradict yourself too much.
Randall~
you know i love you. always had, always will. (you will have to share me with Bucslim, and maybe a bit with DiscHuker, & Mom 424 & Segue $ Kreature & others…but i promise, i’m all yours! you have my CONSCIOUSNESS!) i love your retorts to ignorance, and even, to my own, if i dare say i reveal it. sometimes, i think of you above the squabbling…but i do understand that someone needs to say something, and it may as well be an educated, logical, credible something as opposed to a strictly emotional response.
now i must study microbiology, mycology, veterinary clinical chemistry, and exotic animal medicine.
i’m getting there, gang. taken me awhile, but i’m getting there. only 5 more years of school…
rtr
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
@Randall
Wow. I think anyone reading these comments will quickly understand that you desperately want the approval (or even disdain, which may even get you off more) of the people on the internet. You speak of friends and how you do not care about what people on the internet think, yet you spend so much time posting you arrogant, rude, insulting, and juvenile posts. Obviously you love to demean other people just to prop yourself up. Good luck with all of your “FRIENDS” who are obviously just as superior to us mere mortals as you are.
“My friends are learned, intelligent, well-spoken, broadly humored people who don’t bristle with offense over what someone they don’t even know says on the internet.” – I guess they must put up with someone who is the opposite of them?
“IN FACT, asshole, it’s used for emphasis, and done, when I do it, with panache, taste, and skill. You don’t like, too bad. I invite you most kindly to eff yourself.”- Honestly what adult talks like this about themselves? You put yourself on such a high pedestal yet your arguments and attacks usually consist of nothing more then: Im going to insult you for insulting me and then make myself feel better by demeaning you some more.
I am sure the majority of people who come into contact with you do not find you entertaining in the slightest and probably run away in disgust.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Well at least you didn’t use a picture of a blonde blue eyed Jesus
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
As usual people are arguing in the comments. what a shock.
Get a life folks.
But anyway, the biggest historical myth would have to be that any type of gods exist. Even to the dull, it should be obvious that none do.
And the current crisis is due to the shitful system they have in America. The reason Australia never really got hit was because it had monitors in place to prevent it. We learnt from some some similer, relatively small scale situations in the late 80s. Companies were setup to monitor the banks and prevent this type of thing from happening. America, living on another planet, never bother with this but will no doubt follow suit now.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“I’m not interested in debate here,…”, Randall.
Really?
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
ten best numbers
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I think Randall might actually be Clayton Weatherston.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
All the discussion of what language Jesus spoke is pointless. He is the Son of God he can speak whatever language He wants, no matter what level he was in society.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
@Randall:
I think you’re arrogant in your ways, but that’s my problem. Certainly, i think you’re well versed in this kind of topics. Can you please share a bibliography as a way of back up your assertions, since you wrote up there having books about the subject?
I don’t want to argue, i just want to learn. I know i can search about it, but i really think you can be more helpful than google.
thanks in advance!
P.D. usually i don’t write in english (and it shows :p, im still learning), but i think this is an oportunity to extend my knowlegde about history.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
@ faketree (122):
Reason implies logic. You cannot logically prove the existence of God therefore it is unreasonable.
Really? See, in a sense, you cannot even prove logic. To logically argue for logic you must first assume logic exists. From that point on, you make a logical argument that reasonably justifies your premise that logic exists.
Such is the same with God. To prove or disprove Him, all arguments must first assume He exists (otherwise what is the point?). From then on, you make a logical argument that reasonably justifies your premise that God exists.
Belief in God requires just that, a belief in something unprovable which is inherently illogical.
No, see that is not belief in God. Because God, by nature, is not illogical or unprovable. The thing is, any ultimate proof for God cannot be anything but God Himself as otherwise He would not be the ultimate intelligence, power and authority. So yes, to prove His existence you must first assume His existence and then you can logically justify it.
Logic can’t prove the existence of love either so many people set aside logic to coincide with their beliefs.
Maybe you cannot “prove” it per se, but you can logically justify your assumption that it is real by making a reasonable case for it’s existence.
If this is you, fine. But your belief does not imply reason.
And your statement is arbitrary, how do you justify that my belief is without reason? If I had no reason for my belief, then yes it would be illogical but I can reasonably defend and justify my belief and the existence of God.
In your example you are comparing an actual person, a King, with a supernatural being, God. You cannot compare the two.
Yes I can, because God is a person. King’s are an image of God therefore it is justifiable to compare the two in a biblical context. Your statement is based on your philosophical bias. You start by saying “God does not exist” and then you say “therefore you cannot compare the two” but you are critiquing God’s nature from a standpoint counter to His nature and you are not reasonably justifying your assumption that God doesn’t exist. It’s like trying to argue illogically against logic or irrationally against rationality.
If you start with the assumption that God exists, even for the benefit of the doubt, you will see it is entirely reasonable to compare God to a King.
People can live in reverence or fear or enslavement of a King but that King is an actual person who can do actual things in the real world, like tax you or kill you.
And God is an actual God and person who created and upheld the universe and makes all things possible in the real world.
Your argument is basically “I (unreasonably) don’t accept that God is real, therefore I won’t (reasonably) accept any comparison to something I believe is real.”
July 24th, 2009 at 12:35 am
WOW, the feud between Randall and faketree got out of hand fast. I was sure it was going to end in a d*ck measuring contest.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:47 am
“Jesus” I agree that HE was multi-lingual, speaking Aramaic..the common language of the region and most likely Greek also..But HE most assuredly SPOKE Hebrew..that was the language used in the synagogue and Temple services and for the readings of the scriptures.. However his name was not JESUS…a derivative of the Greek god Zeus… The scriptures state that HIS name meant SALVATION of God (YHVH ) That would be YaHashua or Yeshua for short BTW the “J” sound did not appear in spoken language until the middle ages …
July 24th, 2009 at 12:59 am
love this post so far.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:42 am
I guess one thing that backs up Randall’s argument about classical levels of literacy – Graffiti. Look up graffiti in Wikipedia; here’s a quote about Pompey “The brothel at CIL VII, 12, 18-20 contains over 120 pieces of graffiti, some of which were the work of the prostitutes and their clients.” Even the hoes (plus assorted gladiators and pub customers) could manage to string a few sentences together.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:40 am
@Randall
Ahh Randall, dearest of all my friends. I have somewhat drifted between pure dislike and pity for you over the last 24 hours. Have no worries though, i’m firmly back in the ‘pure dislike’ corner. Pity, because it’s becoming painfully obvious just how much trouble you must have with even simple social interactions. I’d imagine as a young whippersnapper in the bebopping thirties this must have been quite the problem, so it seems you’ve decided to use your intellect as a way of having to avoid such nasty situations. This begs the question, did people dislike you because you were an awkward loner, or were you an awkward loner because people disliked you. I guess, much like the questions of Jesus’ Historicity that led us to this point of no return, we will never know.
Well you’ve showed them haven’t you Randall, whose laughing now. Now you’re a successful…whatever it is you do, with many ‘learned, intelligent, well-spoken, broadly humored’ friends. Not to mention a plethora of admirers on this wonderful website. WHOSE LAUGHING NOW EY?
I’ll tell you who Randall, still them.
Because no matter how hard you try, the image you try to paint of yourself is not the one that comes across. ‘Douchebag’ and ‘Butthead’ are not the words of the learned, balanced, popular individual you would have people believe you are. They are the words of the awkward little lad who found it hard to make friends.
The only thing that stops me from feeling no pity whatsoever for you is your age. A man of, what must be at least, late thirties, who still gets his kicks from belittling people, who are mostly in their late teens and early twenties, on the internet has nothing but pure dislike from me.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Hmm, not boring after all.
July 24th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Comments on this post have been highly entertaining. Time for my two cents:
-I would still like some clarification on #10. See my above post for why.
-Interesting, I didn’t know that Macedonia has changed ethnic makeup in the last few millenia. Although, I suppose when you take into account that Europe is a fairly small place with lots of different ethnic groups, changes in ethnic makeup should be expected… in fact, it should be obvious.
-As a confirmed atheist and student of religion at a foremost Catholic university, I have to say that
1) do not dispute the historicity of the existence of Jesus. There was a guy born around “year 0″ (actually probably 4 BC, go figure) that went around preaching to people in the Middle East, and he ended up martyring himself for his beliefs, quite likely on the cross. You don’t have to actually believe this man was the Son of God or that he performed miracles- I don’t. However, anyone with academic integrity should believe that historical evidence points to his bodily existence on this earth.
2) Again, as an atheist who has spent her educational and formative years at a Catholic university filled with really, really, Catholic people, I have learned that it is pointless to argue religion with religious people. They will not be swayed by any amount of scientific or historical facts, not to mention common sense. Their arguments have no factual merit, but they argue from conviction and faith, not fact- so it doesn’t matter to them. Even religious people that are extremely educated on this topic are like this. I’ve gone up against some of the world’s foremost religious scholars who are actually religious, and it is sad to say that their proof for the existence of God is not much more advanced than what a high school freshman could come up with. Also, yes, I realize that by writing the first part of this post, I am breaking the second.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:10 am
Randall, your irresponsible use of capital letters has no panache, taste, or skill. Emphasis is achieved though turn of phrase rather than pressing the caps lock key.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:28 am
archiealt:
At the risk of repeating myself, asshole, I couldn’t care less what your opinion of me is. There’s no further reason for us to speak here, as all you’re doing is coughing up the same nonsense again, based on nothing. You want to be cutesy, trying to analyze a person you don’t even know, online, who is putting on a persona ANYWAY–feel free. But do it on your own time and do it to someone else. You’re clearly a humorless dick who doesn’t get it, and like a few other shallow idiots I occasionally encounter on this site, thinks that all this is serious—including me—and never seems to understand or grasp the humor and irony here.
Yes yes, archiealt, I was an “awkward loner.” Uh huh. Sure.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:33 am
@faketree78 (182):
I feel the need to point out, “faketree,” once again, that YOU were the one who started out making definitive, conclusive statements based on, at BEST, debatable support. It can’t even be called “evidence.”
Moreover… narcissism? What kind of narcissism does it take to cough up a couple odd quotes that only peripherally support your original, over-the-top contentions, and expect your opponent, as a result, to just sheepishly bow his head to you? I responded (albeit briefly) to your little quotes—which presumably you ought to have expected me to do (since you presented them—or did you simply expect that they’d just “shut me up”?) and now you criticize me for my response.
Interesting… and telling.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Well it’s been a list and a half today folks. Lots of tussle and groan, but I’m hoping it has interested a few people into further research.
As for Randall – I know – he’s a very misunderstood individual. He can appear a little arrogant if he chooses. He can appear as nice as pie if he chooses. He is forthright but hardly ever coy. He can be such a mine of defacto information if you wish to delve deep, and he can be a punchbag if you wish to argue your corner. If you misunderdstand Randall it may be because you never really tried – and I know that sounds harsh (the line came from a song). Do I admire him? No. Do I look up to him? No. Do I look down upon him? No. But I know where he’s coming from, and I appreciate him for being uniquely Randall.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:44 am
@Stizzy (194): ‘To logically argue for logic you must first assume logic exists.’
Logic is the science of correct reasoning. It is a way to determine the validity of arguments. If you want to reject logic especially in a case of such as proving the existence of God, that is fine. But logic has been used by some of the greatest minds in history to try and prove the exitence of God. Why would they do this? Because logic is an accepted science for determining correct reasoning from poor reasoning. It is not necessary to ‘assume logic exists’ any more than it is necessary to assume biology or chemistry exists. When you get in your car to go to work in the morning, which side of the road do you drive on? The one with the cars going in the direction you are going or the opposite way where you’d have cars coming at you head on? Do you put your left shoe on your right foot? Do you brush your teeth with battery acid? No, you don’t do these things because you’ve reasoned in your mind that they are illogical and would lead to being at least uncomfortable and at most dead. You use logic everyday because it exists.
‘So yes, to prove His existence you must first assume His existence and then you can logically justify it.’
This just doesn’t make any sense. It seems now that logic exists. But some weird kind of logic where you assume your outcome before you even begin the argument. This is the complete opposite of logic. By this kind of logic you can prove that absolutely anything exists like unicorns or the boogeyman.
‘but I can reasonably defend and justify my belief and the existence of God.’
No, actually you can’t. Yes, you can justify your belief in God just as much as I can justify my not believing in God. The belief you can justify, but not the existence. If you can, you’d be a grandmaster of philosophy and accomplished something some of the greatest philosophical minds in our history have failed to do. If you do have this proof, I would love to see it and finally but it to bed. If not, we’re back where we started.
‘Yes I can, because God is a person.’
Wait, since when is God an actual person? Surely you recognize that this is not the case. Where does God live? Does he have friends? Does he need to eat and drink food? Why isn’t he on CNN? Because he is not a real person. If he is anything it is a supernatural being, not a flesh and blood human walking the earth.
‘You start by saying “God does not exist” and then you say “therefore you cannot compare the two” but you are critiquing God’s nature from a standpoint counter to His nature and you are not reasonably justifying your assumption that God doesn’t exist.’
I did not say that God does not exist. I defined God as a supernatural being which is actually making a assumption that he does exist. Yet, comparing a human being like a King with a supernatural being like God is not congruent. Its really like comparing apples and oranges or yourself to a single-celled amoeba.
‘And God is an actual God and person who created and upheld the universe and makes all things possible in the real world.’
This statement just proves that you have no interest in logic, which is fine. When it comes to a topic like God, to take that step to belief, it is almost a necessity to reject logic. But still, since logic implies reason and is in fact the study of reasoning, you cannot ‘assume’ your outcome (God existence) at the beginning since that is what you are trying to prove.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:45 am
98. Randall, thanks for that… clarifies a few things. =]
July 24th, 2009 at 6:56 am
@Randall (204): I already said you win. I have no interest in discussing anything with you anymore because you can’t seem to have an argument without belittling the person you are arguing. You asked me for sources, I gave you sources, and you bash them. What else can I do? Nothing, so I’ll just read your arguments from now on and take what I can from them. But unless you want to discuss this in a nicer way, on something that you just admitted was a debatable topic (and after all, isnt that what we are doing? Debating?), you can continue making yourself feel better by bashing other people. Have a nice life.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:00 am
That is quite a way of putting it but yes, the Bible alone isn’t a credible source of existence. All the books of the bible refer to Jesus in the past tense. He was apparently long dead when these books and letters were written. There isn’t one document that has been found that was written while Jesus supposedly lived that mentions anything about a Jesus of Nazareth.
Yes, absence of proof does not constitute truth but the burden of proof isn’t on me. Its on those who seek to prove Jesus’ existence and as yet there is nothing definitive.
Michael Jackson
July 24th, 2009 at 7:21 am
faketree:
Okay, I’ll now return to this:
“Studies of literacy have shown that what we might think of as mass literacy is a modern phenomenon, one that appeared only with the advent of the industrial revolution.”
In in fact wholly agree with Bart Ehrman’s views, by the way, on how the gospels were altered and tailored by later writers to fit the agenda of the early church. But this is nothing new and was known long before Ehrman wrote his study. But again—Ehrman is a religious scholar—not an archeologist nor a specialist in Classical civilization. Of course, this doesn’t mean he’s wrong in his statement above. He’s in fact correct.
But we were not talking about MASS literacy. I never once mentioned that, and in fact from the first qualified MY statements (which were in response to your sweeping, inappropriately definitive ones) to say that while surely not all or even close to all were literate in the Classical world, there was certainly no reason for you to say that nearly all were *illiterate.*
“In nonindustrial societies, the resources were desperately needed for other things,”
All of this is actually irrelevant to what we were discussing. No one, including me, ever said that the Graeco-Roman civilization ever devoted mass resources to education. They did not. But that does NOT equate to mass illiteracy. THAT is in fact an invalid jump from one fact to a conclusion–a conclusion which is insupportable.
“As a result, until the modern period, almost all societies contained only a small minority of people who could read and write.”
And there is where I would say that the phrase “small minority” is an overstatement and needs to be more directly examined. And I’d say that Ehrman threw the term out there too freely, without acknowledging that there is no consensus to support the notion of a “small minority.”
The population of the Roman Empire has never been easy to estimate, but there are those who place it as high as more than 100 million people at its height. This is probably an overestimate, and more conservatively the estimate might be said to be half that. So just for argument’s sake, let’s say that the Classical World, at its height during the Roman Empire, comprised some 50 million people. This is surely conservative enough, and quite supportable.
Now… Harry Gamble and his fellows have tried to assert, as I understand it (unless I’m recalling incorrectly) that literacy under Rome was as low as 10-15% of the overall population. There is by no means simple agreement on this amongst archeologists and historians of the ancient world. Literacy has always been tough as hell to estimate, for a large number of reasons. It certainly isn’t like our world today, where our standard of literacy is based on a certain minimum of performance; but it’s safe enough to say that a simple ability to communicate in writing is basic enough. Even then, the literacy of the ancient world isn’t easy to determine, but we know from a great deal of evidence that it was far from just the “aristocratic elite” who possessed the ability to read and write. There were variances from region to region, surely—but a citizen or subject of the Empire, for instance, could be reasonably expected to communicate in writing, or to be able to read, on a higher percentage than a mere 10% of the overall population. This is supported by numerous examples where it’s clear that communication was carried on not merely verbally but obviously by implication of writing and reading. Was everyone a scribe? No. Was everyone capable of reading the lengthiest texts? Surely not. But archeological evidence indicates, from surviving examples of writing, that the common man had SOME grasp of reading and writing to a percentage of the population which was far higher than 10%.
But let’s take Gamble’s estimate… if we go with the conservative population figure of 50 million, then 10% of that is 5 million individuals. Not a lot in the big picture, no. But a tiny minority? An aristocratic elite? Hardly. But the figure is less easy to believe anyway, when we consider the number of tradesman and merchants living under Rome, who, evidence has strongly suggested, needed SOME degree of literacy for use in their daily lives—it would be hard to believe that this number could be restricted to even 5 million individuals, then. 10 million begins to become more believable, but one doubts even that, when one considers the varying, but often high degree of prosperity and culture from one part of the empire to another—from Spain, for instance, to the Levant, or from Egypt to Dacia. Quite simply, when one knows the archeological evidence–written records, surviving bits of graffiti here and there, documents found all over the empire—it becomes harder and harder to believe that only 10 or even 15 percent of the people populating this vast stretch of earth could actually read and write. SURELY not all of them could, nor even, probably, most of them. But a mere 10%? It becomes almost laughable.
“Levels of literacy were low in classical antiquity by comparison with those prevailing in the most educated countries of the last 200 years.”
OF COURSE they were. Again, faketree, this statement does NOT prove what YOU said at the beginning–and I have never said anything that disagrees with Harris on this point.
“That is entirely to be expected, for each society achieves the level of literacy which its structure and ethos require and its technology permits.” — W.V. Harris in Ancient Literacy
Precisely. And in the Classical World, literacy was a variance. But ILLITERACY was NOT universal, as you had originally claimed. THAT, in fact, is farther from the truth than any claim of universal literacy.
“Looking also at Roman Egypt with its intense official demand for documentation, A.E. Hanson (”Ancient illiteracy”) uses the evidence of papyri, incuding a selection published here for the first time, to examine how large numbers of illiterate and semi-literate people functioned in a world that required writing.”
NOTICE, faketree, that Hanson’s focus here is on Egypt specifically. Egypt had a tradition of cultural/class stratification which did NOT exist in Rome, Greece, or other parts of the Mediterranean. Rather, the analogous cultures with Egypt are those of the ancient near and middle east–Assyria, Babylon, and Persia—cultures with priest-classes that held learning as their own private demesne. The scribe, in ancient Egypt, was a professional position with a clear class status, unlike in the looser socities of the Mediterranean where the scribe varied from a position similar to that of Egypt to one of a common, skilled tradesman, if that. I can’t even recall scribes being mentioned as a specific occupation in the later city-states of Greece.
Egypt is not a good representative sample of the Classical world in this sense, and no one should expect it to be so.
Let’s be clear about something. I’m not contradicting ANY of these scholars—I in fact agree with them for the most part. You presented them clearly with some hope that this supported your earlier, definitive contentions that the vast majority of people in the classical world were illiterate. These quotes do not, in fact, do that. They only say what I ALREADY had said—that literacy in the ancient world was variable, and depended on many factors. But to claim that *illiteracy* was the norm—as you claimed—is simply inaccurate and wrong.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:31 am
@faketree78 (208):
I hardly “bashed” your sources, faketree. I bashed YOU, which is entirely different. And the reason I did so is because you came out here from the first with definitive, sweeping statements that you simply expected (obviously) the untutored to accept.
The reason you did this, I feel, is because it served your underlying “agenda” as it were—which is detectable from your statements regarding Jesus as an historical figure. You will deny this, no doubt, but your original words speak for themselves.
At any rate, you were wrong, and complaints about being “bashed” because you weren’t allowed to get away with your attempts at fooling people aren’t going to make you any LESS wrong.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Aww, see now its not so much a debate over the topic anymore so much as it is an arguement over who’s the biggest douchebag. Lame. I was much more interested in watching when there weren’t so many names being thrown at each other. >:/
July 24th, 2009 at 7:49 am
@Randall (210): Since this response isn’t laced with insults, I feel I can respond. So, you said this…
‘IN FACT the Classical civilization of Greece and Rome—meaning the empires they encompassed–were CIVILIZATIONS—meaning that many people, perhaps even most, were educated to at least SOME extent and certainly could read and write the languages which were used throughout the empire. This was a civilization VERY MUCH akin to our own—including not only education (if by no means as democratized as ours) but comparatively high technology (for the time) and scholarship–as well as a high degree of technical and artistic skill. Jesus, as a tradesman (like his father and family) would have had AT LEAST a basic education and would have certainly known how to read and write.’
In this paragraph you are saying that most people were educated to some extent yet now you are saying…
‘But we were not talking about MASS literacy. I never once mentioned that, and in fact from the first qualified MY statements (which were in response to your sweeping, inappropriately definitive ones) to say that while surely not all or even close to all were literate in the Classical world, there was certainly no reason for you to say that nearly all were *illiterate.*’
These statements seem to contradict each other. Either most people were educated or they were not. Which is it now? ‘Not even close to all’ is in direct contrast to ‘most’.
‘And there is where I would say that the phrase “small minority” is an overstatement and needs to be more directly examined.’
I’m not going to get into semantics or triviality on discussions of what someone actually means by ’small minority’. The fact of the matter is you are the one who is being definitive yet you are slowly starting to show that what we are discussing is up for debate.
If I used the word ‘universally’ to describe illiteracy in the ancient world, then I misspoke and it is clear illiteracy could not be universal or we wouldn’t have writings from that time period. Again, I’m not going to get into a choice of adverbs as we are well beyond that as you have now stated two different opinions about the rate of illiteracy in Jesus’ time.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:53 am
I believe I’ve posted this before… my favorite statement on Jesus’ existence, from my favorite columnist, Cecil Adams of “The Straight Dope”:
“If what you’re looking for is proof positive that Jesus Christ lived and breathed–e.g., library card, baby pictures, etc.–you’re out of luck. The big guy left no written records, and no accounts of his life were written while he was still alive. The earliest Gospels date from maybe 70 AD, 40 years after his demise.
Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one “Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.” The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.”
July 24th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Further:
“Jesus looms so large in world history that it may come as a shock to realize his unimportance during his lifetime. (To the Romans) Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser, perhaps a magician, in a very small, backward part of the world. Jesus’ trial was not news in Rome. If there ever were archives there, they have not survived. If records were kept in Jerusalem, they were lost in the wars of 66-70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army.
Suetonius, a second-century historian writing about the reign of the emperor Claudius (41-54 AD), tells us someone named “Chrestus” had been causing tumult among the Jews in Rome. Chrestus is presumably a misspelling of Christos, the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah.
Tacitus, writing around the year 100 AD, reports that during the reign of Nero (54-68 AD) Christians in Rome were viewed as dangerous enough to be persecuted. Romans knew about the strange “superstitions” of Christians and of their devotion to a man who had “suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” (Annals, 15:44).”
July 24th, 2009 at 8:01 am
July 24th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Yay Xena Amazons!!!
July 24th, 2009 at 8:11 am
gosh randall is a asshole. no one as proffessional as hes makeing himself out to be talks to ppl like that.
u do make good points, and u can get your points across without being rude or nasty or makeing someone else feel stupid.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:22 am
faketree:
There is in fact no contradiction here at all.
I qualified my statements ALL along. “…many people, PERHAPS even most, were educated to AT LEAST SOME EXTENT…” and so on.
The point is that one has to be on the same page when one refers to “education.” My point all along was that YOUR contention that “most” were illiterate was an insupportable statement.
MASS literacy is not the same thing as what I was referring to. I never claimed any such thing for the classical world.
The point is that availablity to SOME kind of education was there for a good percentage of the population. It was not compulsory nor was it institutional in the way we expect and know today, except in certain instances. But again, it depends on what we mean by “education.” At any rate, the skills of reading and writing were clearly, from the evidence, broadly shared enough amongst the population of the classical world as to suggest that these were learned in SOME manner, and probably often in relation to one’s particular trade.
“I’m not going to get into semantics or triviality on discussions of what someone actually means by ’small minority’.”
It is not “semantics” or “triviality” when the question remains as to what is meant by a “minority” of this or that kind, in a population possibly exceeding 50 million, perhaps reaching far higher.
“The fact of the matter is you are the one who is being definitive yet you are slowly starting to show that what we are discussing is up for debate.”
BULLSHIT. You have not ONCE shown how I have been in ANY WAY “definitive,” when in fact that is PRECISELY what you were from the get-go. YOU were the one who made the sweeping statements about illiteracy in the classical world, and all along I have done nothing but correct you on this and have openly qualified my statements at EVERY step.
“If I used the word ‘universally’ to describe illiteracy in the ancient world, then I misspoke and it is clear illiteracy could not be universal or we wouldn’t have writings from that time period.”
You in fact stated that MOST people were illiterate and implied that this an overwhelming majority of the people. THAT is what I took you to task for, and have shown you again and again was an invalid statement to make.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Chavon, I don’t think Randall is rude or nasty to anyone, he simple corrects wrong information when he sees it, and to correct wrong information, you have to tell the false informer they are WRONG.
I’ve only seen Randall use names when people have called him something, or said something demeaning first, and wouldn’t you defend your own honor/knowledge? Its only human nature.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:30 am
You shouldn’t take others too seriously, this is the internet.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:34 am
kage..yea ur rite but to a certain extent….randall is obviously very educated and knows wat hes talkin about but he does alot of belittling. like anyone that comments something thats wrong hes like “WRONG, WRONG, DEAD WRONG SORRY BUT YOUR WRONG” its like take a chill pill okay! everyone knows your intelligent.
doesnt he seem like the nerdy smart kid in class that u jus wanna fuk up everytime you walk by? thats human nature!!!
July 24th, 2009 at 8:36 am
my point exactly…he shuldnt be that concerned if someones wrong or not..doin all that name calling…its not that serious!
July 24th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Nope, he doesn’t seem that way to me, but perhaps that is because I see his intelligence, understand that he’s most likely very well educated in what he’s talking about because it makes sense, and he’s well versed. If he were ignorantly running around yelling about how people were wrong and not backing it up with good info as to why, I’d think differently. I don’t personally want to be misinformed, do you? And personally, I like watching the debates because they are informative, but when they start turning into name calling matches and personal attacks, that is when I turn off. Did Randall personally attack you? I don’t recall him doing so because you didn’t make a misinformed remark.
July 24th, 2009 at 8:52 am
it doesnt matter how intelligent or educated he is, hes still a asshole. the ppl he was attacking obviously didnt know what they were talkin about n yea, if i made a remark that wasnt correct i wuld want him to correct me 2, but not in the snotty “i know it all” way. like if i sd something and he responded like chavon YOUR DEAD WRONG, i wuld b like damn, okay, u dnt have to take it that far but thanks i guess. its like, calm down dude. n i like the debates to, even the name calling ones but he takes it waay to far…u see where faketree was like u win okay okay, and randall kept talkin shit. calm down! its just listverse, dnt get your blood pressure up bcuz someones not as educated as u. does he do this to his students? i bet not….it doesnt matter if its over the internet or not, these are human beings with feelings, i would be hurt if i was called a twit or douchebag lol and retaliate with hurtful words too
July 24th, 2009 at 8:54 am
u think hes a good guy and i think hes an asshole. these are our opinions. and its okay!
July 24th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Glad I came back to this site some new very interesting items which I wanted to know more about. Great work on your site.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:02 am
Bah, the level of ‘you’re wrong’ comments is based on how ignorant the comment was. Thats the only hoity-toity-ness I really see, and I don’t think its out of spite. Maybe its just because of the maturity of some people, but if I said something wrong, and I got corrected, I wouldn’t be all booty hurt. And if I didn’t trust the info I recieved about what I was corrected on, then I’d research and retaliate with information. And he didn’t call anyone names until he was called one first. Thats how it works, this is Listverse, most people are educated and open-minded. Regardless, people seem to get really inflamed when it comes to religious debate, so this is probably why emotions are running high.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@Kage (228): ‘And he didn’t call anyone names until he was called one first.’
This is untrue. If you look at my first comment, #67, where I don’t call anyone anything and then Randall’s first comment, #88, I’m called ignorant, a silly American, and have my education questioned. Instead of an honest debate about the subject he turned it into childish name calling from the start.
I should of even responded to him after I forfeited the win to him. That was a mistake that I won’t make again.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:15 am
should = shouldn’t in the above comment
July 24th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Jesus. Would it help some of you if I told you what one person on here finally realized about me? I am the Don Rickles of this site. Okay?
Do you get it?
Another way of thinking about it—since I’m a big fan of both comics–is that I’m kind of like the Andy Kaufman of this site. If you don’t understand the reference, I can’t help you.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:18 am
it seems like they do research and retaliate with information but randalls jus so smart and has that know it all ‘tude he jumps down their throat. like when he said “did u google that”, or however he used that statement, thats belittling and its wrong.
i guess i jus always play the “defend the people” role. n randall was attacking faketree n i guess i felt kinda sorry :/
n oh yes oh yes the religious debates are very interesting and peoples toes do get stepped on. very good point!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:20 am
also, randall did start the name calling. i am very nosey and read each and every comment!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:25 am
faketree:
This is NOT a forum for deep, intellectual debate. Or rather, if you and I MADE it that, you and I would be the only ones reading what we wrote. I have little interest in engaging in an argumentative discussion, online, with someone I don’t even know. It’s a waste of my time, and my time is valuable to me. If you were someone I knew, and I knew we had something to say to each other that we COULD discuss at length–and I knew that you had some inkling of what you were talking about—then I might be willing to do so (engage in a lengthy discussion here). But then why do it here? If all that were true, we could do it elsewhere, via email or something.
The bottomline is this: you came on here making definitive, sweeping statements in support of your own personal bias. I called you on it on the basis of historical accuracy–namely, that definitive statements CANNOT be made about literacy in the ancient world in the way you made them.
That’s it. The manner I chose to address this, from the start, was through my usual persona, on this site, which you witnessed. If you don’t like it, too bad. You made the statements you made and you are therefore open to attack. But furthermore, this site ISN’T a professional journal forum. It is LIST UNIVERSE. You want professional and scholarly decorum, go elsewhere. You may run into me. But you won’t know it’s me, because I comport myself differently in those venues—which is only appropriate.
This is an entertainment site who’s secondary purpose is to provide information and a place for people to sound off. You sounded off. In doing so, however, people take the risk of being responded to in kind.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:29 am
gosh i LOVE LISTVERSE!!!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:33 am
RAH! I got sucked in.
And I guess I was wrong. My bad. LOL, I guess thats karma.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
@faketree78 (152): im afraid you’re wrong. All four gospels were written by members of the twelve disciples. they were written after the fact however. so they clearly weren’t illiterate. And for jesus to have been able to go to the temple and preach he MUST have read the scrolls otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to quote them. and i’m almost certain that the records of jesus’ crucifixion do exist. wether we have found them or not. ( the romans destroyed jerusalem like 65 AD so they might have been lost during that time.)
Furthermore the jews were terrified of christianity when it first appeared. if you wanted to dissuade someone from a religion why not use documents that show that the messiah of this religion never existed or was never crucified.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:38 am
@Randall (157): wow… everything i wanted to say but better written!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Good list. I was aware of the Cleopatra, Jesus and Inquisition myths, but the other ones where really weird and interesting to me
July 24th, 2009 at 9:39 am
@Randall
Randall, i hate to be the one to tell you but if thats how you see yourself then you do, as i had a sneaky suspicion, have a very warped view of yourself. You are not the funny guy who insults and educates people in a hilarious way. Your just an arrogant fool.
I think it just goes to show that j (186) was spot on with his comments. You claim not to care about what people think of you and then say things such as ‘I’m kind of like the Andy Kaufman of this site.’ Clearly demonstrating that you take delight in the fact that you think people see you as this hilarious guy who puts people in their place with sharp wit, a head full of knowledge and, of course, CAPS LOCK. Well i’ll say it again, your not. Your an arrogant fool.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:39 am
kage–> ur cool in my book ; )
July 24th, 2009 at 9:43 am
@Michael Jackson (209): would you (as a historian author or poet) think to write a bout a minor cult leader? Probably not. and it is likely that you haven’t even heard of him. jesus spoke only in Israel. not throughout the roman empire! He wasn’t gathering huge amounts of attention but simply preaching to whoever would listen the only people who really cared about him were followers and the pharisee.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:44 am
@archiealt (240): oh cuz that clearly has so much to do with the actual argument here!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Aw, thanks, you’re sweet.;) From now on, I’m neutral. :p
July 24th, 2009 at 9:47 am
lol much agreed!!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:48 am
wow its listverse, essay edition!
July 24th, 2009 at 9:52 am
They need to make a list on what list made the most comments.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am
@archiealt (240):
And I’LL say it again, archie… I don’t give a shit about your opinion of me—so stop offering it. It wastes time and space here. Go play elsewhere jerk.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I didnt think Hopkins played a general, was he not Aristotle in the film Alexander?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:26 am
@Kage (247): It’s on the about tab on the top of the page.
July 24th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Haha i’m loving the pointless arguements and insults. Most of all the ad homienum attacks on people instead of the ideas presented. It is, dare I say it, pathetic. I mean seriously, who cares? Can’t we just play nice?
July 24th, 2009 at 10:41 am
@Looser (237): Actually, I’m afraid you are wrong. The names given to the gospels, like the Gospel According to Matthew, were added after the original letter were supposedly written. None of the authors claim to eyewitness to the teachings of Jesus. In fact, there are many instances, mostly found in John, where they refer to ‘the disciple’ as being someone else and ‘we’ as the author of the passage. The gospel of matthew was written completely in the third person. If Matthew and John were both disciples and written in their own hand, why are they so radically different in style and interpretation of events?
Again, the gospels were not written by the people they are attributed to. Many, not all, biblical scholars have come to this conclusion.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:06 am
@faketree78 (252): i’ll have to chime in on this one. there is no dispute that matthew wrote matthew, mark wrote mark, luke wrote luke and john wrote john. matthew and john were first hand witnesses. john calls himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved” and even mentions Jesus leaning against him as they reclined at dinner one night. mark was a friend who accompanied peter so his information was 2nd hand. luke begins his gospel stating that he set out to compile a history of the events that had taken place in jerusalem.
you keep refering to “biblical scholars”. you should start laying out some names. my guess is that these scholars you refer to are not main stream.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@DiscHuker (253): OK…
The most popular and easy to read for a layman, like myself, is anything by Bart Ehrman, as I mentioned earlier. Specifically, ‘Jesus, Interrupted’.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
@DiscHuker (253): FYI, Bart D. Ehrman…
- Graduate, Moody Bible Institute 1978, an evangelical bible school
- Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary
- James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
July 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am
@DiscHuker (253):
there is no dispute that matthew wrote matthew, mark wrote mark, luke wrote luke and john wrote john. matthew and john were first hand witnesses.
Actually, there is a big dispute. Per Mr. Ehrman…
‘A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels (“the Gospel according to Matthew”), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it “The Gospel according to Matthew.” The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books “according to.”
Moreover, Matthew’s Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what “they”—Jesus and the disciples—were doing, never about what “we”—Jesus and the rest of us—were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about “him,” not about “me.” Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There’s not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.’
July 24th, 2009 at 11:54 am
My goodness, how you people get your knickers in a twist!!
And no one noticed the mistake way back at the beginning. Socrates was NOT Alexander’s tutor. It was Aristotle. Not that it makes any difference at this late date. Except maybe to Anthony Hopkins…..
July 24th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
@Randall (180):
Man I really dug your in depth answers and knowledge and then you go to far…way to far.
First you use a word like “umbrage” in a topics section. You got aspergers or something?
Second in the space of one night you post shit loads of comments each yards long. Do you live to do this? I mean “normal” folks browse the list make a short comment and go look at some porn or whatever takes their fancy. You on the other hand read the list and then write a small essay, then ANOTHER ESSAY (sorry you know how to use caps) and when someone disagrees with you you write another essay telling them they are talking shit.
How much time can one man spend looking at one website?
You obviously do know your stuff – after all you are a scholar and have TAUGHT (sorry caps again) in many places. Though at the moment you are between jobs (obviously) with so much time on your hands. Me? I have also taught but I do not use it as a penis extension to make myself look intelligent.
To finish (not re-cap to use a teaching expression) please share your knowledge… we really do enjoy learning new things, but don’t look down on us from your tall pedestal.
July 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
@pestomama (257): I noticed too (see little further up) though it seemed no one noticed me say that either haha
July 24th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Reading through the numerous rants on this and other lists, I’m reminded why I’m so fortunate as to have grown up in the presence of my father. He’s well educated, exceptionally intelligent, willing to defend an opinion, yet he is always the gentleman. He’s no push over; having served in the military during WWII; and by virtue of his Irish heritage he possesses a sense of humor that often leaves his friends in tears. When involved in healthy debate he never resorts to low-level tactics. Often, when correcting someone who is clearly mistaken, I hear him say things like the following: “ I had heard that also, but recent research seems to show…” or “I see your point, yet historical records say…” or “You may be correct, but my own understanding is that…” He’s always humble, well informed, usually correct, and never impolite.
Arguments by those who use schoolyard taunts, and obscene language do not sway me. What typically draws my attention is more likely a well thought out case that may include factual evidence, historical records or enlightened opinion. As soon as I start seeing the vulgar euphemisms and name calling, the author begins to loose credibility with me. Why resort to such juvenile tactics if the argument is persuasive on it’s own? The expletives themselves overshadow the points that are being made. Instead of being convinced, I find myself distracted by the language.
To those who enjoy the derogatory or “put down” humor, I certainly thrive on my fathers teasing and his jokes at my expense, most likely because he does it with the obvious twinkle in his eye. That’s not what comes through with the commenter who posts as though he/she is thoroughly enraged. I’m often left wondering why they posses so much rage and who in their life suffers for it.
To those who think, “It’s only the web”, “I’m anonymous here”, “This isn’t how I normally behave,” I’m reminded of this:
“The measure of a man’s character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out.” (Thomas B Macaulay, British writer and politician)
July 24th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
@tripsyman (258):
Jesus F**king Christ, if I’m not sick of a bunch of newbies piling on me the past couple days… what, did some eager nerd sniff “pompous” in the air and alert all his pimply little buddies that there was a big balloon on the internet to be deflated?
For instance, “tripsyman,” I just love the logic you use here, clearly without even putting a thought to it. You basically accuse ME of not having a life, despite the fact that the “essays” I’ve written here have all been germane to the discussion–i.e., they’ve been ABOUT the topic at hand–while YOU, on the other hand, saw fit to waste your time NOT to write about the topic, but rather to make some lame “corrective” comments to a person you don’t even know, about an argument which you apparently disparage. As if I’d listen to you, or care what you have to say, or if it would in any way change my style of writing here, or my “behavior”—seeing as I’ve been an apparently valued contributor to this site for over a year or two now. (As for that claim, I invite you to ask around).
And *I’m* supposed to be the one without life? *I’m* supposed to be the clueless dick here? Sure.
“First you use a word like “umbrage” in a topics section. You got aspergers or something?”
Yeah, that’s cute, prick. You were just waiting to use that line, weren’t you? Tried it out on your friends probably, and when all of you stopped giggling like teenage girls, you just couldn’t WAIT to type it on your keyboard.
“I have also taught but I do not use it as a penis extension to make myself look intelligent.”
I’m quite sure, tripsyman. So you use the penis extension, obviously, for the purpose for which it was actually intended, right?
“don’t look down on us from your tall pedestal.”
Well now, if I’m on a “tall pedestal” I can hardly do otherwise now, can I?
July 24th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Jesus didn’t even exist, he was an amalgum of religious figures like Horus, Ganesh and others.
July 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
put down the scissors Clayton
July 24th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Aaron is entirely right in #3. The lack of regulatory oversight over banks, the stock market, and other areas has led directly to the current crisis.
Regardless, such a gratuitous comment in an otherwise good item is terribly out of place. This list isn’t the place to try to lay blame on the current crisis. It is a list to explain historical errors, yes?
July 24th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
@Link of Hyrule (262): But that is the mythological Jesus. We’re discussing, or trying to, the historical Jesus; whether or not there was a person called Jesus of Nazareth and whether he did the various earthly things that are attributed to him in the bible like turning over the moneychangers tables outside the temple or whether he was an apocalyptic jewish prophet with 12 disciples or whether he was crucified by the Romans or not.
July 25th, 2009 at 1:54 am
@Randall (261): lol
July 25th, 2009 at 6:41 am
If you pay attention and start looking closely for it, you can start to see where JFrater’s right-wing bias slips further and further into actual lists. It’s become more apparant recently, but that’s not to say it’s an overt thing. If you look you can see where JFrater’s political loyalties lie, which is a bad sign for anyone who wishes to view Listverse as it should be; unbiased and professionally neutral.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:11 am
@ Randall (261):
Note to self: never EVER mention your penis extender when arguing with Randall. Actually, just don’t argue with Randall at all.
It really bores me how the mere mention of Jesus actually removes all interesting input from the comments.NOBODY KNOWS PEOPLE!! And that’s not going to change. He may have been there, he may not, he may have been miraculous, he may not. Trying to argue it as a purely proof-driven exercise is pointless; faith is called faith for a reason. Believe what you want, but PLEASE stop trying to knock the other side’s arguments out of the court, it doesn’t work on this one and it makes trawling the comments frustrating as Hell!
July 25th, 2009 at 7:14 am
@ Moonbean (260): Couldn’t agree more.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:57 am
@Phil (263): Your comment sounded so funny on it’s own so I did a search for “Clayton and scissors.” I’m not from New Zealand, are you referring to Clayton Weatherston who stabbed his girlfriend 219 times with scissors?
Perfect metaphor!
July 25th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Moonbeam- great post. I am glad someone could point out this problem so eloquently and thoughtfully.
@ people who say “don’t argue with Randall”- Granted, a lot people who do argue with Randall have no idea what they are talking about. However, to say “NEVER argue with Randall” seems like it goes against the spirit of this online community. As long as debates are done thoughtfully and kindly, why shouldn’t someone at least try to throw their two cents in? Yes, they will probably get their ass kicked, but just remember that you will never learn much if you do not question anything.
July 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Nice list, overall. However, you seem to imply that the Amazons were just a myth when there is lots of physical and documented evidence that they did exist, or at least some variation of a female warrior society.
July 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@Randall (261):
I’m not aiming to aggravate your little “arguement” but after reading both your comment and Tripsyman’s comment, I think he really got you there.
You need to find something else to occupy yourself with, as Tripsyman said. The majority of people comment on the list, maybe on other people’s comments, but you seem to bring it upon yourself to write out paragraph after paragraph of, to be honest, useless knowledge.
“You basically accuse ME of not having a life”
Right, okay. Maybe I should lighten up on what Tripsyman actually meant. Obviously you have a life otherwise you wouldn’t be typing on here attempting to defend yourself from these “newbies” and their “pimply little buddies”. What he actually meant was that you have no social life, proven by – “contributor to this site for over a year or two now”. It’s not really anything to brag about.
Penultimately, you seem to have a problem with you caps lock key, as it is in every other sentance you type. It does NOT (couldn’t help myself) make you big or even seem big in the slightest, it actually makes it seem like you’ve become extremely annoyed with all the “newbies”. Which of course you have, “Jesus F**king Christ”, “prick” and so on prove this.
As for the “pedestal”, what goes up must come down. There’s always a way to get down. So maybe you should do so before someone decides to bring it upon themselves and “help” you.
Au revoir étrange créature
July 25th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
@Moonbeam (270): Yes the same narcissistic egomaniac. There out there.
July 25th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Duh. They’re out there.
July 25th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
No one expects the Spanish inquisition!
July 26th, 2009 at 11:36 am
@Hatsuk (273):
Who the F**K do you think you are? Do you assholes HONESTLY not see the absurdity of telling someone YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW that he “has no social life,” OVER THE GODDAMN INTERNET?
In point of fact, moron, I have a wonderfully RICH social life, thanks. I’m partway through a wonderful weekend the first half of which was spent with a lady friend, two of my neighbors (close friends) and a couple friends who up from the Dominican Republic. I was the host for drinks and snacks on the beach behind my house, and then the neighbors were our hosts for a cookout afterwards. Then more drinks and long conversing in my backyard, then to ANOTHER couple’s house after that. Today, breakfast with one couple and the friends from the D.R., and I just had a brief break to stop, do some work, and type this little nonsense to you, you idiot, while waiting for ANOTHER friend who is stopping by. Tonight, meeting up with other friends at a coffee shop in town. I then get my kids back the day after tomorrow, and we’re off to Maine for a week, stopping to visit with friends on an island in Casco Bay, then up to stay for a time in Camden. Then the weekend I’m back, an old friend and her husband are stopping by with her mother for another cookout, and then a lady friend and I are off to NYC to visit friends.
How’s that? Is that social enough for you, asshole?
In fact, I have a nicely rich life, working at a major university, and I live in a quaint little village surrounded by friends and neighbors. I’m quite happy, and my social life is nice and full. You, on the other hand, are the kind of dick who goes online and tries to analyze people you don’t know in the slightest. I’ll take MY life anytime, jerk.
July 26th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
@Randall (277): I have a wonderfully RICH social life, thanks. I’m partway through a wonderful weekend the first half of which was spent with a lady friend, two of my neighbors (close friends) and a couple friends who up from the Dominican Republic. I was the host for drinks and snacks on the beach behind my house, and then the neighbors were our hosts for a cookout afterwards. Then more drinks and long conversing in my backyard, then to ANOTHER couple’s house after that. Today, breakfast with one couple and the friends from the D.R., and I just had a brief break to stop, do some work, and type this little nonsense to you, you idiot, while waiting for ANOTHER friend who is stopping by. Tonight, meeting up with other friends at a coffee shop in town. I then get my kids back the day after tomorrow, and we’re off to Maine for a week, stopping to visit with friends on an island in Casco Bay, then up to stay for a time in Camden. Then the weekend I’m back, an old friend and her husband are stopping by with her mother for another cookout, and then a lady friend and I are off to NYC to visit friends.
In my imaginary life I do all that stuff too. Except I am also Adonis-like.
July 26th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I love these top 10 lists! and the comments
July 26th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
“I’ll take MY life anytime,…”, Randall
Comments?
July 27th, 2009 at 12:55 am
RE: The Building of the Pyramids of Egypt. Its construction was certainly a colossal task. I believe that Egyptians labored to build it. So did foreign workers who were either slaves or captured enemies. Egypt was ruled at that time by absolute monarchs who were considered as Gods. Who could defy the orders of an absolute monarch and a God? So, it might not be technically forced labor. But the Eqyptian workers were coerced and intimidated by the order of their God and monarch to build the pyramids thinking they would receive favors and blessings during their lifetime and after death. Those who wrote the graffiti praising the pyramids could be expressing their pride in their contribution to make the desire of their God and monarch a reality.
I love the United States of America. We have freedom of expression. Furthermore, an exchange of opinions like this forces one to check their spelling and grammar. I welcome anybody who can point out my errors in these. I thank the author for providing the forum that facilitates this exchange.
July 27th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Where was no Spanish Inquisition, it was called Spanish Casual Chat
July 27th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Um…the Spanish Flu is NOT the same virus as the Swine Flu. That is total bullshit.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“pyramid builders were actually Egyptians who were most likely in the permanent employ of the pharaoh”
And this isn’t anything at all like slavery. Good call.
“The replacement of a hands-off approach to the economy with a more regulated one by President Roosevelt has been blamed by many for the current economic crisis.”
Right, because all of that government oversight was obviously preventing the banks from issuing subprime loans.
Other than these 2 bullshit and obviously partisan claims, good list.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Hebrew is the written form, Aramaic is the spoken form, just btw.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:41 am
It might be worth mentioning, if it hasn’t already, that Catherine the Great of Russia was German.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:44 am
and that the English version of the Spanish Inquisition, under Bloody Mary (1553-58) who was married to the king of Spain, did burn a horrifying number of people.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:45 am
It is also likely that Jesus was fluent in Greek as this was the secondary language of the region and it was the language of the common version of the Bible used by the Jews at the time.
My gosh, will you just give up this attempt to spread lies about the Catholic Old Testament already?? Please?? If you’re going to outright lie to further your agenda, just say “THIS PART IS BULLSHIT” before it, please???
July 30th, 2009 at 12:02 am
“The replacement of a hands-off approach to the economy with a more regulated one by President Roosevelt has been blamed by many for the current economic crisis.”
I barely know where to start with this…
First, the sentence makes no sense…FDR’s economic policies caused economic chaos in 2008? What about the numerous fluctuations since? Were these policies also responsible for rosy economic periods? This is complete nonsense.
Second, yes, some have blamed regulation for the current mess. Some have blamed aliens for cattle dismemberment. If the housing bubble can be blamed on government involvement (another argument), certainly it wasn’t government REGULATION to blame…and whether the bailout will work has yet to be determined (though many expected the whole mess to be fixed in a few hours).
Third, what has FDR to do with the bailout?
This is economic analysis a la People Magazine.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:26 am
and…
“Okay atheists, it’s your turn. Ball’s in your court. What evidence WOULD you accept that Jesus was a historical figure? What would it take?”
What has Jesus’ historical existence to do with atheism?
July 30th, 2009 at 3:54 am
I don’t know much about the developpement and changes of religions, but I wonder about all the people who don’t belive that Jesus was a real, historical person, where did Christianity then start if not from Jesus?
I’m an atheist, but I have always been taught in school that Jesus did live, and I always though that he was the Martin Luther of his days.
But if did not exist, then where does Christianity have its roots?
I’m not trying to take side in the Jesus did/did not exist, just wondering about the origin of Christianity…
July 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Wow, some people seem to have their panties in a twist.
@msulli22 (271): Agreed. However, if you come to a debate with half-truths and misinformation, you really should expect to get your ass handed back to you, be it by Randall or by any one of the numerous knowledgable individuals who frequent this site. You want to throw in your two cents? You can either ask questions or come prepared with sources.
@tripsyman (258): Seriously, how does it affect you personally if he posts 50 page essays to every question? Are you hurt in some way if he does or does not have a social life? Or look at porn? If you dont want to read a comment because it is too long, then skip it. Some of us actually appreciate the information. Do you know how boring this site would be if everyone just posted trite one-liners?
“Jesus never existed…”
“Yes he did”
“No he didnt”
A real fin read, let me tell you!
July 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
“Hebrew is the written form, Aramaic is the spoken form, just btw.”
Sure about that? I thought they were distinct, though related, languages…
July 31st, 2009 at 9:49 am
“The replacement of a hands-off approach to the economy with a more regulated one by President Roosevelt has been blamed by many for the current economic crisis.”
JFrater, to boil down such a complex situation into one sentence is disservice to this site and your respectability. Just because you picked up a few books or have a rich pro-business uncle doesn’t mean you can simply throw up that kind of shallow assessment on your site.
Could you possibly be implying that Hoover’s hands-off approach was best? Do you even remember that fallout after Lehman Bros collapsed?
Also, a general note on the lists. If you’re going to baldly rip paragraphs from Wikipedia, at least make sure the punctuation and capitalization lines up. Bush league, sir.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
How can you flatly call #7 (Building of the Pyramids) a myth? Considering how monumental of a task it was, I’m sure that at least some slaves were used.
August 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
Randall and others
Wow, first off to all the Christians who are bashing the non-Christians…what the heck? Are you sure you are the real deal? How disappointing to hear the things you are saying. Esp number (48) I hope you realize its people like you who give Christians a bad name, and its people like you who turn people away and put them in the place you are maliciously holding over their heads in the first place. Remember you are saved by grace, and there is NOTHING you did to earn that. His gift is about mercy, what you are saying here is NEVER something Jesus would have said to anyone. I am super disappointed to see comments like that on here from fellow believers. Who are you to judge others? I mean seriously? Raft and straw?
Now to Randall. I think your knowledge is incredible. Totally would love to use some of it myself for some of my conversations with others on the simple proof of Christ. With all that you say, I am surprised you don’t believe he is the son of God. I am genuinely surprised by this. I see you are a man of fact, and I respect that. What I want to ask you then is if you believe he existed (man or otherwise) have looked at the evidence that he is more than man? What I draw attention to most of all are all the prophesies of the OT that pointed to his coming and how he fulfilled EVERY single one of them. Is that a mere coincidence that he would fulfill every singe one of them right down to the lineage of his family? There are like hundreds of them so I won’t post them all here (although if you want me to I will) I am guessing you are probably no stranger to these however, so just curious what you take is on that?
Thanks!! Oh, and I am really only after a friendly convo here.
August 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Faketree… why do you think ancient people would only know one language? If Jesus was a carpenter he was also a buiness man, he traveled a lot, walking from place to place.. and would have learned several lanugages… Also, jews of that era were highly educated, as well as the women on of the mid-east… stop watching tv and start reading. If you believe who the man was or not, it does not lessen his level of eduction or the education of others of his time.
I started to comment on the amazon woman, that would have worn a leather shield over one breast and given the appearance of being “flat” on one side. Any one that has shot a recurve bow with out the correct arm guards undestand what I mean.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Why the hell would you include a so-called god in a list attempting to expose myths??
August 6th, 2009 at 2:42 am
I’d like to first mention a couple of small points with regard to the debate about Jesus:
The Jewish people introduced a system of general education for boys about a century before the time of Jesus’ birth. This was the first time this had been done at a national level in world history. So yes, there was general literacy in Israel (Galilee and Judea) at the time of Jesus.
Aramaic and Hebrew are two different though related languages (much as Spanish and Italian are related) that continue to be used in the Middle East today. Though the scholarly consensus has long been that Aramaic was the language of Jesus, recent archeology in Israel (including the discovery of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls) has been shifting that consensus in the direction of Hebrew as the spoken language in the time of Jesus.
However, Aramaic with its wider regional use would also have been known in Israel (as was Greek) to enable communication with traveling merchants and the many hundreds of thousands of Jewish religious pilgrims that came up to Jerusalem every year (much as many involved with tourists around the world today have learned basic English).
Both Aramaic and Hebrew appear in the Bible, though Aramaic appears in just a few small sections (primarily in the book of Daniel). In the same way, a few short sayings in the gospels are in Aramaic (like Eli Eli Lamah Sabacthani), as would be appropriate in a multi-lingual environment.
These sayings remain in their original language for much the same reason that when a Russian novel is translated to English, the primary Russian is translated, but the few small French bits remain in French.
With regard to the pyramids (#7), recent excavations in Egypt have completely reversed our views that the pyramids were constructed by slaves. From the remains of a village where pyramid builders lived, we now know that theirs was considered an honored, highly-skilled profession with religious significance.
With regard to the Inquisition (#6), while the number of those officially put to death may be smaller than some imagine, many tens of thousands of others died in prison or as a result of privation resulting from penalties imposed by the Inquisitors. Protestants were not the only targets of the Inquisition, but Jews and heretics as well.
With regard to the “Old Religion” in Europe (#10), I agree that the article as written is unclear. There were many pagan religions practiced in Europe (as we know from both history and archeology), traces of which remain in otherwise “Christianized” traditions practiced until today. At the same time, it’s true that the infamous witch trials had little to do with this old paganism
August 6th, 2009 at 8:31 am
@zoemar (296):
Thanks for the compliments.
“With all that you say, I am surprised you don’t believe he is the son of God.”
zoemar, I don’t know WHAT to think about Jesus. I certainly believe he existed–to me this is glaringly obvious. People who deny he actually existed are simply ignoramuses, and/or have an agenda to push.
As to the mystery of Jesus, however–well, I simply believe in a metaphoric/poetic reading of him as opposed to a literal one. Was he the son of god? Well, in fact, zoemar, we are ALL the sons and daughters of god. I believe this was Jesus’ message. We are all the same. We are all one. You can be like me, awake to what I am, what we all are. In that sense yes, there is the deity in all of us.
I find a too-literal interpretation of the Bible, and mythology in general, to be far too binding and limiting, and in the end, counterproductive to spiritual awareness and discovery. To me, far more doors to wisdom and spiritual advancement are opened by NOT reading these things literally, than otherwise. Simply because something CAN be read literally doesn’t mean it SHOULD be.
“What I want to ask you then is if you believe he existed (man or otherwise) have looked at the evidence that he is more than man?”
Again, you are asking me to buy into a literal interpretation. I refuse to do that. Jesus’ MESSAGE and MEANING are where the “history” of Jesus end and the spiritual begins. And so to me the two have nothing to do with each other. My factual/historical judgement is that Jesus clearly existed. Beyond that, in terms of what the MEANING of Jesus is–that’s not history, or fact. That to me is something else. And what I see when I look at the evidence, the stories, the poetry and mythology of Jesus–is a deeply mysterious spiritual message which says we all have the potential to be as he was, if only we open ourselves up to it. I don’t need to view him as a god-figure who stands in judgement of me, etc. I don’t believe this is the real point.
“What I draw attention to most of all are all the prophesies of the OT that pointed to his coming and how he fulfilled EVERY single one of them.”
And to me prophecy, (as reliable as it can be considered to be, which isn’t very) mythology, and the mythic cycle represented in Jesus are all one. Jesus was also an echo of a mythic cycle older even than the Old Testament. The god/hero who is born of a virgin, dies, and is resurrected has existed in the human conciousness for ages. It is symbolic of the eternal, and symbolic of the reality of life constantly renewing itself, from birth to death, to rise again in the next generation.
To me the Truth in this is far deeper than in some literal reading of Jesus as THE ultimate fulfillment of some prophecy or other.
“…so just curious what you take is on that?”
Well there, that is my take. I do not interpret Jesus literally. He was what he was. The mystery of him I don’t pretend to attempt to explain or justify or understand. I simply wish to understand his meaning and message. That to me is what he wanted us to do.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“The replacement of a hands-off approach to the economy with a more regulated one by President Roosevelt has been blamed by many for the current economic crisis.” Of course, no economic policy since then (including the very hands-off Reagan and Bush) had any effect at all. “blamed by many” perhaps should be “blamed by many republicans”?
August 6th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Randall
I’m new here, not even sure how i happened upon this list. That said, i read the”discussion”, betwixt you and the fake guy. Interesting…and, bye the bye, i found that your use of capitalization was, in fact, panache filled…whatever that means.
Also read your discourse from earlier today, which is why i’m posting here.
I am curious (since you seem like someone who honestly seeks understanding), if you have ever considered the possibility of a God that is greater that our comprehension.
What if, in fact, He is so far beyond our mental abilities (as great as we may consider our own), that all we can conceive is but the shadow of the shadow?
What if He deliberately hides Himself from us? If He only lets those who seek him – not his existence, but Him – find Him, what are we to do then?
If He is actually who, and what, He says, then what?
This is all purely hypothetical, but what if?
Just interested as to your take on it.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:06 am
@Hugh Askew (302):
I’m not sure, exactly, what it is you want my “take” on. Beyond the silliness of god “hiding” himself from us (why?) most of what you’re talking about is a kind of rephrasing of what I already said, more or less. Though, again, I’m not sure that I believe in a “personal” god.
But that’s just it—if god is beyond our comprehension–which is a notion I’d essentially agree with—then isn’t it somewhat silly to speak of god as “he” and “him”?
“If He only lets those who seek him – not his existence, but Him – find Him, what are we to do then?”
I’m not sure I understand your question. What are we to do? What *can* we do? Your choice is to look for god, or spirituality, in your life in whichever way you feel is best for you.
I mean, this is fairly obvious.
You know, again… to get at the metaphoric *Truth* of spirituality, it helps to unload these ideas of god as a “person” or a “personality.” I’m less concerned with WHAT god is than I am with getting in touch with the divine or the eternal in whatever way I can, in this life.
“If He is actually who, and what, He says, then what?”
Well again, this question doesn’t make much sense to me. Who/what does god “say” he is? To what are you referring? The Bible? Are you asking me, what if god is actually the Jehovah of the Old Testament? Well, A) I’m afraid there’s no way we can know that, but to be frank, I don’t believe it. B) Not being able to know—why ask?
I’m not trying to be difficult, by I simply get the impression that you want to ask a question, but haven’t figured out how to phrase it.
“God” has been revealed to us in mythology in a myriad of ways. There is no “one” vision of what god is–but at the core the “truth” can be found in all religions, at all times. The trouble is that few who practice those religions really look that deep.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Love those lists! Amazing work.
Do you have a top ten of other websites which would also publish interesting list such as this one???
August 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Discussions such as these that question myth and the “truth” regarding the myth are the ultimate in human expression. I have enjoyed each and every posting, including the ones that pull aside the curtain of “civilization” and allow us all to glimpse the beast that lies hidden in each breast. I too get angry sometimes when people don’t agree with me or unjustly accuse me of “not having a life”. It’s disrespectful. But to then descend into name calling disturbs me and tends to turn my attention rather than focus it. It is of course no one’s obligation to retain my attention. I am though reminded of my grandmother who flatly stated that people who exclusively used expletives were “language poor”. By that she meant that there were more varied and erudite ways of insulting people.
Just a few thoughts: Scholarship has always been a value to Jews. To study Torah is considered and was considered in Jesus’ time, a right and a duty for men. Therefore, Jesus would most likely have been literate, Mary probably wasn’t. As others have pointed out, he would also have encountered peoples from any number of places around the busy pond that was the Mediterranean. Greek was the universal language of trade. Even the Romans spoke it though Latin was beginning to be imposed in conquered territories by then. Rome certainly wanted to impose its rule and one way to do that is to outlaw the native language and the native culture. It is also the way that the conquerors separate and elevate themselves from the peasantry, as certainly happened in 1066 when the French speaking William imposed himself on the Anglo-Saxon-Norse speaking inhabitants of Britain. So, while Jesus most certainly spoke Aramaic it is likely that Greek would offer people more opportunities and he probably would have spoken that language but would he have spoken Latin as well? I wonder if part of Jesus’ silence at the questioning by Pontius Pilate – who certainly existed – could have been attributed to difficulty with a language not his own? The description of that scene in the gospels has a ring of truth when that one simple question is considered. A small thing, but from such small things, larger ones grow.
It should also be remembered that Hebrew is a reconstructed language that has purposefully been brought back to spoken life by committee, begun when Israel was carved out of Palestine in 1946, nurtured through the 60’s and now universally accepted as THE spoken language of the Jews. I don’t think anyone else has mentioned that fact. It is funny how people think that what is now is what always was and always will be. Context is all.
Of course, this does not answer the question as to whether Jesus was divine. Religion – from the same Latin root as ligature and ligament – to bind, to tie, to link together – was meant, is meant to bring people together, to foster connection. When thoughtful leaders of the great religions are brought together to discuss their beliefs, their faith and the way they wish to live their lives and how they hope their congregations can live, they often talk about commonalities, about connection. This is a universal underpinning of all great schools of thought, that we are connected in our humanity. Religion then, has the job of enlightening us about connection. When it fails in that it becomes dogma and descends to fanaticism and that in turns drives us apart and allows us to falsely see the “other”. It is only when we see the “other” that we can contemplate destruction of that “other”.
Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity. That came after he had left this earth, whether once or twice as some believe. But Jesus like many great religious leaders did speak about acceptance, about love, about connection. He was certainly not the first to do so but he seems to have been one of the greater proponents of such sentiments. The “old religion” certainly existed because humans have always sought connection. It is partly what makes us human. But it is likely that the old religion(s)was(were/are) more about us and them, more about keeping the small group I belong to safe from the small group that they belong to and also about keeping at bay all the mysterious forces that can cause harm to us and those connected to us. Isn’t it sad that after 2000+/- years of having such a message of connection from someone who clearly saw how we one and spoke so eloquently about it in such a small and far away place and yet touched millions in every corner of the world, that we still strive with all our might to disconnect from one another? I think the message of connection itself is miraculous and so the question as to Jesus’ divinity is moot. That makes the question of his reality nonsensical. The message was real. Now, if we could only hear it.
One final word about civilization… history shows us how the very idea was and still is used as a weapon. All peoples have built “cities”. The human condition calls us together to survive. Whether those cities are built out of tents, teepees or skyscrapers, they’re still cities made up of people gathered together with common purpose and common beliefs. I find that to say one group is more civilized than another because their cities stand permanently in one place is short-sighted at best. This belief is disconnecting, unaccepting, ignorant and possibly racist. So many peoples have been conquered in the name of “civilizing” the savages. Us/them. The other. What would have happened do you suppose, if the Romans had never decided they had the right to engulf the known world in the name of “civilization”? How would those lost civilizations have realized themselves? What would the Celts have taught us about the world they saw beyond the ground we stand on? What wisdom would we have been able to share from all the First Nations peoples if Europeans had ventured to trade with respect instead of venturing to exploit? I think we should be careful not to use “civilization” as another word for “better than”. Culture is not solely realized in a permanent settlement.
Jfrater, thank you for this forum.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
re: “The Inquisition”
That entry is apologist propaganda.
The goal of the first Inquisition was the total genocide of Cathars who dared to say the church should be poor like Christ. Do you know any Cathars still alive?
The Inquisition obsessively kept records and when the German Emperor shut them down in his territories, the seized records listed 250,000 people murdered in the German Empire alone.
There were multiple ‘Inquisitions’ and the last man they murdered openly was in Mexico right before the Mexican government kicked them out for spying during WWI.
Hitler was educated to be a Roman Catholic Priest.
In 1933 the Vatican signed a Concordat with the NAZIs making Roman Catholicism the only recognized religion in the Reich. All others were punishable by death.
I encourage everyone to do enough research to see them for the monsters they are.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:34 am
First off, great list.
Second. I agree Randall, however, I am agnostic. I know, I know … get off the fence right. However, I think that anyone who refuses to think that jesus was mythical is ignorant. He was real, but he was man. He was not a son of god, if anything he was just a good hearted kind of guy that wanted to share a little love. To read the bible as a literal is in all honesty ridiculous. Its a good read, but thats about it. It is sad that christians have taken all this love and turned it into love for themselves. I am all about the love and christians … arent we still trying to figure out what they are all about?
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Cleopatra killed herself because she was pining for Mark Antony? Had nothing to do with that business at Actium and an impending visit from Octavian, then?
October 10th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Cleopatra was not only Greek. For God’s sake watch the discovery channel!
December 24th, 2009 at 5:30 am
“Socrate is known only through the writings of his students”
ahahahah even heard of xenophon, aristophanes etc?
“No more than 2,000 people who were tried by the Inquisition were executed.”
ahahahahah only in poland 10.000 executions…
I’ll stop here, this list is interesting but filled with a lot of comic mistake
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:12 pm
lol that photo of Amazons with that black woman in it is silly
January 20th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
The worst thing for business is extreme regulation. Ask any business owner. Regulation absolutely kills innovation. The surefire way to handicap an economy is to harm business… and that’s what regulation does.
And it’s not like regulation even works in many cases. The most misleading and horrendous government agency, the FDA, is one of the most regulated. Talk about giving subsidies to huge monopolizing farms…. it really only hurts us.
And it’s why I don’t understand liberals who support regulation. Regulation is what is killing the small, organic farm industry.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Amazons were purely legendary.