Embedded Files
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-real-reason-why-we-can-and-could.html
Feel free to reprint and to edit collections of my essays! (link to conditions)
"La vérité et l'érudition, en effet, ne sauraient être hérétiques, au point de redouter d'utiliser ce que des érudits, même hérétiques, ont écrit et exposé avec justesse". (Dom Guarin)
· Accueil
· Un blog a été donné à vos étudiants.
· Where You Looking For Something Else?
· Can we get this straight? I never said I was atheist up to becoming Catholic
· Weakness of CMI : Church History
· A Catholic who will go unnamed
· Are All Responses to CMI Here?
· What is a Miracle? What Does it Take?
· My Carreer Shouldn't Depend on Merriam Webster Spelling
lundi 14 mars 2022di 14 mars 2022
The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer
Kevin R. Henke
Hans Georg Lundahl
Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3
Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True
Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three
Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer
I am going in advance of my plan, so, I am getting this published for 15.III, as the last day on which Henke asked for it, and signing it today, with today's saint, so you can see when it was really written. I underline the basic contradiction between McDaniel and Henke.
McDaniel, 2019
Before I go on to discuss the archaeological evidence for Alexander the Great’s existence, I wish to emphasize that, even if we had no archaeological evidence whatsoever, based on the surviving literary evidence alone, we would already have overwhelming evidence for Alexander the Great’s existence. ... There are five major detailed histories of the campaigns of Alexander the Great written by reputable historians that have survived to the present day:
· the Universal History written by the Greek historian Diodoros Sikeliotes (lived c. 90 – c. 30 BC)
· The Histories of Alexander the Great, written by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (fl. c. first century AD)
· the Anabasis of Alexander, written by the Greek historian Arrianos of Nikomedia (lived c. 86 – after c. 146 AD)
· The Life of Alexander the Great, written by the Greek biographer and Middle Platonist philosopher Ploutarchos of Chaironeia (lived c. 46 – c. 120 AD)
· the Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, written by the Roman historian Iustinus (fl. c. second century AD), based on an earlier history written by the Roman historian Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (fl. c. first century BC)
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022
If it could be shown that these historians were independent of each other and if they had reliable sources, then we would have reason to place greater confidence in their claims even without any external evidence.
... Furthermore, if one author writes a positive biography on a leader and another writes a negative one, we might have more confidence if they both agree that the leader was involved in a battle at particular time and location.
... At the same time, we have to be initially skeptical about written documents. As you know, any literate individual can write anything. Just because something is written down does not mean that it happened. As I’ve stated before, the history of the Mormon Church teaches us that it’s very possible for large numbers of people to believe in fabrications in a short period of time.
My reply
McDaniel knows how to do ancient history, Henke doesn't.
This is where McDaniel actually does a service to Homer, Livy and obviously also the early chapters of the book of Genesis.
I go by earliest known audience, but here the earliest known audience of these works actually was itself living centuries after the events.
How do we know they weren't misled? Because, unlike early Mormons on the details of Moroni's life, they already knew the history of Alexander. Presumably there were written sources prior to the ones we have, when it comes to Iustinus in the 2nd C. AD, he is giving us an abridgement (that is what epitome means) of an earlier and longer work by Trogus, who was from 1st C. BC. Similarily, if Trogus (lost except for epitome), and Diodorus were all 1st C. AD - which is as far as we get, we may presume they had access to even earlier writing that is now lost.
Nevertheless, too often ancient authors fail to list their sources. Furthermore, they may be relying on each other or burrowing information from the same erroneous sources.
Meaning, not only the works are lost, but also the reference is lost.
So, how did people back in the 1st C. BC know Alexander had actually lived and started the Hellenistic era?
On Henke's view, arguably they didn't.
Plutarch's parallel lives include a parallel between Caesar and Alexander - but worse, they include one between Theseus and Romulus as well - the kind of persons that on Henke's view belong to mythology. And Plutarch lived so much longer after Caesar, that those pretending the Gospels are a myth would have to blush. Definitely time enough for a myth to form, on their view. I will give you wikipedian article reference on Parallel Lives, people with expectations like Henke's have arguably added lots of the "citation needed" that we see:
The chief manuscripts of the Lives date from the 10th and 11th centuries, and the first printed edition appeared in Rome in 1470.[6] Thomas North's 1579 English translation was an important source-material for Shakespeare. Jacob Tonson printed several editions of the Lives in English in the late 17th century, beginning with a five-volume set printed in 1688, with subsequent editions printed in 1693, 1702, 1716, and 1727.[citation needed] The most generally accepted text is that of the minor edition of Carl Sintenis in the Bibliotheca Teubneriana (five volumes, Leipzig 1852–1855; reissued without much change in 1873–1875).[citation needed] There are annotated editions by I. C. Held, E. H. G. Leopold, Otto Siefert and Friedrich Blass and Carl Sintenis, all in German; and by Holden, in English.[5]
Two of the lives, those of Epaminondas and Scipio Africanus or Scipio Aemilianus, are lost,[7] and many of the remaining lives are truncated, contain obvious lacunae and/or have been tampered with by later writers.[citation needed]
Plutarch's Life of Alexander is one of the few surviving secondary or tertiary sources about Alexander the Great, and it includes anecdotes and descriptions of incidents that appear in no other source. Likewise, his portrait of Numa Pompilius, an early Roman king, contains unique information about the early Roman calendar.
How about Diodorus?
The earliest extant manuscript of Bibliotheca historica is from about 10th century.[26] The editio princeps of Diodorus was a Latin translation of the first five books by Poggio Bracciolini at Bologna in 1472. The first printing of the Greek original (at Basel in 1535) contained only books 16–20, and was the work of Vincentius Opsopoeus. It was not until 1559 that all of the surviving books, and surviving fragments of books 21 to the end were published by Stephanus at Geneva.
It was written by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus[1] in the 1st-century AD, but the earliest surviving manuscript comes from the 9th century.
I don't even get a mention of earliest manuscript. We do know he was mentioned by Photius, later patriarch and schismatarch, in his Bibliotheke. He lived in the 9th C.
I do not know if we can see the same handwritten books he saw. I will however cite his preface:
I have admitted into my narrative as strictly authentic all the statements relating to Alexander and Philip which Ptolemy, son of Lagus,11 and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus,12 agree in making; and from those statements which differ I have selected that which appears to me the7 more credible and at the same time the more deserving of record. Different authors have given different accounts of Alexander’s life; and there is no one about whom more have written, or more at variance with each other. But in my opinion the narratives of Ptolemy and Aristobulus are more worthy of credit than the rest; Aristobulus, because he served under king Alexander in his expedition, and Ptolemy, not only because he accompanied Alexander in his expedition, but also because he was himself a king afterwards, and falsification of facts would have been more disgraceful to him than to any other man. Moreover, they are both more worthy of credit, because they compiled their histories after Alexander’s death, when neither compulsion was used nor reward offered them to write anything different from what really occurred. Some statements made by other writers I have incorporated in my narrative, because they seemed to me worthy of mention and not altogether improbable; but I have given them merely as reports of Alexander’s proceedings. And if any man wonders why, after so many other men have written of Alexander, the compilation of this history came into my mind, after perusing13 the narratives of all the rest, let him read this of mine, and then wonder (if he can).
On the kind of hyperscepticism Henke shows on ancient history, Ptolemy and Aristobulus could be "characters in a story" ... this is how St. Luke gave his sources.
But then why do we believe that Diodorus' and Trogus' audience knew rather than mistakenly believed that Alexander was historic rather than fun fiction?
Henke presumably has memories of his father telling him of World War II. He would presumably admit this was was still known from first hand memory to be history, not a fiction. But when all who were born prior to 1945 are dead? Well, those in my generation will know from older persons that it happened. I know Sweden was neutral but part time mobilised, since my grandpa was mobilised - and reformed back into his civil profession, that one being a distiller at Vin & Sprit.
The Battle of the Granicus in May 334 BC / Troy Conquered 1180 BC (between 1179 and 1185) - someone was 20 and could recall it well.
60 years passes, he is 80 and dies, but before that, someone who is then twenty has been formed by him : 274 / 1120.
60 more years, handed on to third minimally overlapping tradition bearer : 214 / 1060.
Fourth needs to take over as Nestor - within the minimal overlapping generations, not overall - in : 150 / 1000.
Fifth : 90 (had Diodoros Sikeliotes as younger contemporary) / 940.
Sixth : 30 / 880.
Seventh : 40 AD / 820.
Eighth : 100 AD (we are talking Arrian) / 760 (we are talking Homer).
In Masoretic chronology, Moses would be eighth from Adam, as Haydock said, and in LXX (without the second Cainan) Abraham would be sixth from Adam, Moses 12th.
In each of the three cases, we believe the eighth generation account to be reliable because:
· it was in its time believed to be history (or it wouldn't have acquired that status later)
· there is no reason specifically to believe someone specific actually frauded about it being history, no potential Joseph Smith in sight.
If it is adequate in two of the cases, there is no real reason why it wouldn't be so on the third case too. Except obviously, Henke has, contrary to his announced agnosticism, a pre-set agenda excluding talking snakes and such. But that agenda is - however respectable it may be in academia - no actual reason to exclude the history of Moses from historicity.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Thomas Aquinas
7.III.2022
In monasterio Fossae Novas, prope Tarracinam, in Campania, sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et Theologiae scientia illustrissimi; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem Scholarum omnium catholicarum Patronum declaravit.
PS. Have you heard of a Monty Hall problem? You pick a door, and Monty opens one other door with no car behind it and asks if you want to switch. Since there is just one car and two goats (or whatever the zonkey might be), you are 2/3 likely to be wrong on your first choice, and you have zero likelihood he opens one with a car, because he knows where the car is. In 1/3 of the cases, you would move away from the car, in 2/3 you would move to the car. But a chronicler is not Monty Hall. A chronicler goes by different rules and one of these is, he knows what his audience knows and therefore at least on certain levels, honesty pays. Hence, sticking with the chronicle rather than going with the reconstruction makes as much sense as switching the door in Monty Hall problems./HGL
PPS - Here is the oldest reference proving Alexander was a conqueror from Greece overthrowing Persia and many nations:
[1] Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: [2] He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: [3] And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him. [4] And he gathered a power, and a very strong army: and his heart was exalted and lifted up. [5] And he subdued countries of nations, and princes: and they became tributaries to him.
[6] And after these things, he fell down upon his bed, and knew that he should die. [7] And he called his servants the nobles that were brought up with him from his youth: and he divided his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive. [8] And Alexander reigned twelve years, and he died.
And twelve years seems to refer to his Macedonian, not his Persian, kingship.
It is in 1st Maccabees, in the LXX and Vulgate Bible, and it's late 2nd C. BC, which is older than Diodorus./HGL
Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 23:00
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse