Using the same methodology to prove the historical Jesus and, more importantly, lowering the bar of what/ who historical Jesus was, we can also say that there was a historical Hercules.

Like, for example, the case that Nancy Loewen makes in her book "Hercules":



Can you prove she is wrong?

But the question also is "Who was historical Hercules?" How many of these legends about him are true? Was he just some strong guy who was a strong soldier? Or was he some king? Or was he some very strong family guy, but he became so mentally ill and thus violent that he even killed his wife and kids?

Nancy doesn't go into details, but maybe we could analyze his myths and use the same criteria that Jesus's historicists use when they analyze gospels.

When he was a child, he couldn't yet control his strength (powers) so he got angry that he killed his music teacher. This is embarrassing. Why would anyone invent this? This must have happened.

As a young lad, Hercules lived in some rural mountains with his parents. Now this is too embarrassing if someone was just inventing a superhero god who was to inspire people (they would definitely put him in some nice distinguished city to live). Therefore this must have happened and was known, so they couldn't just sweep it under the rug.

He then got married to a princess (but she was probably something below princess, although probably not so low as a peasant), and then he killed her and their kids thinking they were snakes. Now, this is too embarrassing for someone to invent this, so this probably happened. It probably wasn't because of the curse that he killed them, but something more mundane, like he was drunk or schizophrenic or bipolar or something else - we may never know.

And then come his tasks. I won't spend much time on them, but I will say that some probably happened. The task where he meets Atlas and holds the sky for him is invented because we know how cosmology works. But the task where he had to was the stables of more than 3000 cows probably happened (although it was probably much fewer cows) because who would invent that a hero has to wash shit away? Or when he had to sail to some island to pick up cows, it also happened because it is unheroic, especially since he killed a giant with three bodies there which was probably added later to make this mundane and shameful task somewhat worthy of a hero.

After he finished those tasks, he had some other adventures which were probably all mythical because they were all very heroic, like joining the armies where he fought for good causes, punishing kings, and saving people from monsters. Especially when he becomes god later in life, meaning that people didn't consider him to be god, but only added it to him later. So he was maybe some strong and ingenious man who sometimes couldn't control his temper.

So, are you a Hercules mythicist or a Hercules historicist?

I might be an Aherculist.

Thou the tome of FSM does speak of a Kirkulese whose feats include outrunning a garden snake, Carrying 100 paving pebbles at once and his most impressive accomplishment herding 4 cats back into town.

What do the earliest manuscripts say about Hercules?

How many surviving copies do we have to compare against each other?

How wide-spread is this story?

How many different languages has this story been translated into?

Alot

More than the OT

Global

All of them.

I tend to view the whole historicist/mythicist thing as something of a false dichotomy. There’s really no bar to a Greek strongman (or a rabble-rousing Jewish preacher) who had his deeds exaggerated into divine proportions.

There are historic kernels in the stories of Robin Hood, Arthur of Britain, plenty of others. The idea that it would be impossible for a legendary figure to have some basis in history doesn’t strike me as supportable.

Boru

The only fundamental difference between the two positions is which came first. A christ myth. Or some guy.

Personally. I think it was the myth. Let's start right off the bat by noting that the whole messianic (and herculean) spiel is that the guy fit into a preexisting myth. I think that our legendary figures (both real and imagined) are a bridge between the world of our lived experience and the world of our mythological cultures. Was there a greek strongman? Sure. Plenty. Maybe hercules has his eyes, or his nose, or his ears. Or maybe the author was daydreaming about his own boyfriend when he described the demi-god.

(September 16, 2024 at 8:15 am)h311inac311 Wrote: How many different languages has this story been translated into?

That’s a good method of historical reliability? Seriously?

Fun fact: apparently, the Bible is the work of literature translated into the most languages. You know what #2 and 3 are? The Little Prince and Pinocchio. The stories of an alien visiting an aviator and a living marionette.

(September 16, 2024 at 12:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The only fundamental difference between the two positions is which came first.  A christ myth.  Or some guy.  

Personally.  I think it was the myth.  Let's start right off the bat by noting that the whole messianic (and herculean) spiel is that the guy fit into a preexisting myth.  I think that our legendary figures (both real and imagined) are a bridge between the world of our lived experience and the world of our mythological cultures.  Was there a greek strongman?  Sure.  Plenty.  Maybe hercules has his eyes, or his nose, or his ears.  Or maybe the author was daydreaming about his own boyfriend when he described the demi-god.

I still don’t see that it matters. If the myth came first, there’s no reason that characteristics of an actual person couldn’t have been appended to it. If the guy came first, there’s nothing to prevent mythic - or even divine - elements being added to his story.

A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

Boru

I'm Hercules denialist. There is no single shred of evidence for existence of Jupiter and thus even if there was peron with vague resemblance to mythical hero that person wasn't Hercules, who was defined as son of Jupiter. Same with Jesus - there is no god so there is no son of god. Wherever he was made of whole cloth, cobbled together from several people with fantasy added in or vaguely resembling some religious nutcase it is of no importance as Jesus as commonly understood did not exist as there could be no son of god when there is no god.

(September 16, 2024 at 2:47 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: I'm Hercules denialist. There is no single shred of evidence for existence of Jupiter and thus even if there was peron with vague resemblance to mythical hero that person wasn't Hercules, who was defined as son of Jupiter. Same with Jesus - there is no god so there is no son of god. Wherever he was made of whole cloth, cobbled together from several people with fantasy added in or vaguely resembling some religious nutcase it is of no importance as Jesus as commonly understood did not exist as there could be no son of god when there is no god.

Not actually the point, but I agree completely.

Boru