RE: Ash Wednesday
March 10, 2009 at 8:53 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2009 at 8:55 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
[quote='chatpilot' pid='11596' dateline='1236697731']
I am of the opinion padriac that sometimes that anthropology and those involved in religious studies tend to over complicate the issue of the existence of Jesus just to name one example.
quote]
The existence of Jesus is not a topic which would properly be considered by anthropologists.It's irrelevant. One of my anthropology professors defined anthropology as "the study of meaning". Beliefs are examined for their meaning,especially in context. The question of the truth of such beliefs has not been considered since James Frazer (The Golden Bough Published 1890)
There is no such thing as an ancient historian as we understand the term. History as a discipline did not exist before Edward Gibbon in the C17th. Ancient historical accounts tend to polemics and propaganda with little regard for fact and may not reasonably be accepted a prime sources. EG Josephus was a Roman apologist,everything he wrote needs to be "sifted", as does anything written by Julius Caesar who umm "exaggerated" (Caesar "invented" the Germans,a small tribe,as a major threat to Rome for for personal political ends)
In my opinion you seem be conflating scholarly method and thoroughness with being over complicated. Just a wild guess,but I would I be right in thinking you might not not have actually read a lot of history and virtually no anthropology? (the C19th notion of anthropology is a bit of a hint)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough
It's in two volumes,and really boring. I've only been able to wade through part of the abridged version, which is still 1000 pages.
I am of the opinion padriac that sometimes that anthropology and those involved in religious studies tend to over complicate the issue of the existence of Jesus just to name one example.
quote]
The existence of Jesus is not a topic which would properly be considered by anthropologists.It's irrelevant. One of my anthropology professors defined anthropology as "the study of meaning". Beliefs are examined for their meaning,especially in context. The question of the truth of such beliefs has not been considered since James Frazer (The Golden Bough Published 1890)
There is no such thing as an ancient historian as we understand the term. History as a discipline did not exist before Edward Gibbon in the C17th. Ancient historical accounts tend to polemics and propaganda with little regard for fact and may not reasonably be accepted a prime sources. EG Josephus was a Roman apologist,everything he wrote needs to be "sifted", as does anything written by Julius Caesar who umm "exaggerated" (Caesar "invented" the Germans,a small tribe,as a major threat to Rome for for personal political ends)
In my opinion you seem be conflating scholarly method and thoroughness with being over complicated. Just a wild guess,but I would I be right in thinking you might not not have actually read a lot of history and virtually no anthropology? (the C19th notion of anthropology is a bit of a hint)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough
It's in two volumes,and really boring. I've only been able to wade through part of the abridged version, which is still 1000 pages.
