Historical Hercules

[The Valkyrie]

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

This picture is of the Historical King Arthur.

Direct descendant of Brian of Nazareth.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

At some point, anything like this about any subject is entirely academic - and there are multiple roads to the same destination.  The two are very different with respect to the historic development of both the literary tradition and the religion, though.    Without a singular "historic jesus"...for example, the story of early christianity is not one of a bunch of simpletons and halfwits trying to make sense of the death of their local witchdoctor, nor is it an issue of unscrupulous operators selling gullible rubes on magic beans. The story, then, and all of it...becomes parable - intentionally so and from the very begining. A story that's not about a palestinian who was strung up by rome but a story about how life could have been, should be, and may yet become.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

At some point, anything like this about any subject is entirely academic - and there are multiple roads to the same destination.  The two are very different with respect to the historic development of both the literary tradition and the religion, though.    Without a singular "historic jesus"...for example, the story of early christianity is not one of a bunch of simpletons and halfwits trying to make sense of the death of their local witchdoctor, nor is it an issue of unscrupulous operators selling gullible rubes on magic beans. The story, then, and all of it...becomes parable - intentionally so and from the very begining.  A story that's not about a palestinian who was strung up by rome but a story about how life could have been, should be, and may yet become.

Not remotely the point, but you be you.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is that the story having it's origin in myth, or in a garbled version of historical events, is different.

I think what you mean is that it hardly matters now. That regardless of how the story began contemporary christians still believe what they do and won't be dissuaded by it. Sure. The same would be true if we time-machined a greek literalist to present day, in all likelihood. There were greek literalists long after euhemerus suggested that such stories were legends, too - but that way of thinking did influence greek and later roman religion, which was part of the steeping pot of christianity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The point is that the story having it's origin in myth, or in a garbled version of historical events, is different.

I think what you mean is that it hardly matters now.  That regardless of how the story began contemporary christians still believe what they do and won't be dissuaded by it.  Sure.  The same would be true if we time-machined a greek literalist to present day, in all likelihood.  There were greek literalists long after euhemerus suggested that such stories were legends, too - but that way of thinking did influence greek and later roman religion, which was part of the steeping pot of christianity.

You’re still trying to make this about the story. It isn’t.

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

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

This picture is of the Historical King Arthur.

Direct descendant of Brian of Nazareth.

And all because some watery bint threw a sword at him.

[The Grand Nudger]

The point is that the story having it's origin in myth, or in a garbled version of historical events, is different.

I think what you mean is that it hardly matters now.  That regardless of how the story began contemporary christians still believe what they do and won't be dissuaded by it.  Sure.  The same would be true if we time-machined a greek literalist to present day, in all likelihood.  There were greek literalists long after euhemerus suggested that such stories were legends, too - but that way of thinking did influence greek and later roman religion, which was part of the steeping pot of christianity.

You’re still trying to make this about the story. It isn’t.

Boru

I think you'd baffle the mythicist and historicist communities if what you're saying there is that historical jesus and historical hercules aren't about the stories.  It's the only place either of them exist.  How the stories came to be the way they are, and whether they inform (or misinform) us on the details of an actual person is the whole shebang.   You can keep me guessing, lol..but I'll probably keep getting it wrong.  If by "this" you don't mean historicism, but the idea that there is no difference between a mythicist and historicist hercules (or jesus)...acknowledging how both elements can be combined, then I'd say again you'd be wrong.

I'll use hercules and the hydra as an example.  I suspect that we're all familiar with and wouldn't disagree with a skeptical explanation.  That it's a fable.  Solve one problem, another crops up.  The only way to deal with such things is totally and all at once.  Greece had alot of issues.  Boilerplate stuff.  

Now, one of the oldest historicist explanations for this story actually comes from the second century ad.  Pausanias tells us that he's ready to believe in hercules, and he's ready to believe a hercules killed a snake, and he's even ready to believe that it was the biggest damned snake on earth.  He believed the details about the multiple heads (which would grow from 6-50 with retelling) was artistic flair.  Does this make a difference?  Yes.  A testable one, in fact.  We need only look for giant snake species in the area circa 1200bc...maybe a few generations prior.  You will not be surprised to find that there were no such snakes.  There were no giant snakes to kill, therefore there can be no historical hercules the giant snake killer.

Maybe, though, we're being too literal..and paulanias was being unimaginative.  In another historicist explanation which goes back to the 1700s, hydra was local flooding, and defeating the hydra was a civil works project (this is the so-called forgotten king hypothesis, btw).   What hercules actually did was to tame the swamp.  Would there be a difference here?  Yes.  Again...a testable one..and, again, one for which we have no evidence, and one which we have good reason to believe never happened.  Lerna has been very productive.  There are sites that go back to 2500bc.  No evidence of any such work at any strata.  In fact, the hydrological and agricultural history of the area for all of recorded time and for prehistory before it has been a story of drying out.  This hypothetical historical hercules the dam builder could not have existed, because there was no such work and no need for it.  

Or..perhaps, in a historicists explanation that comes from contemporary sociology, maybe hydra was that forgotten king above's own people rising up against him?  No evidence of that in lerna either.  It was a remarkably peaceful place for bronze age greece.  I still like it, though - and going back to the op, with regards to the criterion of embarassment and killing his family in a drunken rage because he thought they were monsters......well.  Something jumps out at you when you're reading greek stories.  Great Men's wives and children were constantly plotting on them and betraying them, and the great men were always and forever at some point in a plan for revenge or retribution.  Gods and kings both.  I want to point out that as far as archeaologists are concerned the forgotten king theory has been debunked.  I use it precisely because it's been debunked.  Because we can take the narrative and propose a hypothetical historical person who was having a bit of trouble ruling his little fiefdom and ended up killing his fam...before ultimately going out and doing things which very much look like politicking for the commoners.  Handling their very period and class appropriate issues - the storytellers we'ren't embarrassed that their king cleaned out stalls..that was part of his cv for godhood....but, ultimately, we think that particular historicist hypothesis was wrong because no evidence supports it and all evidence points against it.  


Finally...one mythicist explanation.  Hercules and the lernean hydra is a story about malarial disease.  It was a serious issue for ancient greece.  Every lernaean was hercules.  Every puddle of water was hydra.  Lernaen graves were...conveniently, in or between houses. Endemic malaria has been confirmed by lesions on the remains, and..more broadly, by a mutation carried by greeks who colonized italy by the 8th bc.

So..there's a list of differences, not just between mythicist and historicist positions, but between competing historicist positions....and what physical evidence would (or could) flesh out a given hypothesis...for your amusement.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You’re still trying to make this about the story. It isn’t.

Boru

I think you'd baffle the mythicist and historicist communities if what you're saying there is that historical jesus and historical hercules aren't about the stories.  It's the only place either of them exist.  How the stories came to be the way they are, and whether they inform (or misinform) us on the details of an actual person is the whole shebang.   You can keep me guessing, lol..but I'll probably keep getting it wrong.  If by "this" you don't mean historicism, but the idea that there is no difference between a mythicist and historicist hercules (or jesus)...acknowledging how both elements can be combined, then I'd say again you'd be wrong.

I'll use hercules and the hydra as an example.  I suspect that we're all familiar with and wouldn't disagree with a skeptical explanation.  That it's a fable.  Solve one problem, another crops up.  The only way to deal with such things is totally and all at once.  Greece had alot of issues.  Boilerplate stuff.  

Now, one of the oldest historicist explanations for this story actually comes from the second century ad.  Pausanias tells us that he's ready to believe in hercules, and he's ready to believe a hercules killed a snake, and he's even ready to believe that it was the biggest damned snake on earth.  He believed the details about the multiple heads (which would grow from 6-50 with retelling) was artistic flair.  Does this make a difference?  Yes.  A testable one, in fact.  We need only look for giant snake species in the area circa 1200bc...maybe a few generations prior.  You will not be surprised to find that there were no such snakes.  There were no giant snakes to kill, therefore there can be no historical hercules the giant snake killer.

Maybe, though, we're being too literal..and paulanias was being unimaginative.  In another historicist explanation which goes back to the 1700s, hydra was local flooding, and defeating the hydra was a civil works project (this is the so-called forgotten king hypothesis, btw).   What hercules actually did was to tame the swamp.  Would there be a difference here?  Yes.  Again...a testable one..and, again, one for which we have no evidence, and one which we have good reason to believe never happened.  Lerna has been very productive.  There are sites that go back to 2500bc.  No evidence of any such work at any strata.  In fact, the hydrological and agricultural history of the area for all of recorded time and for prehistory before it has been a story of drying out.  This hypothetical historical hercules the dam builder could not have existed, because there was no such work and no need for it.  

Or..perhaps, in a historicists explanation that comes from contemporary sociology, maybe hydra was that forgotten king above's own people rising up against him?  No evidence of that in lerna either.  It was a remarkably peaceful place for bronze age greece.  I still like it, though - and going back to the op, with regards to the criterion of embarassment and killing his family in a drunken rage because he thought they were monsters......well.  Something jumps out at you when you're reading greek stories.  Great Men's wives and children were constantly plotting on them and betraying them, and the great men were always and forever at some point in a plan for revenge or retribution.  Gods and kings both.  I want to point out that as far as archeaologists are concerned the forgotten king theory has been debunked.  I use it precisely because it's been debunked.  Because we can take the narrative and propose a hypothetical historical person who was having a bit of trouble ruling his little fiefdom and ended up killing his fam...before ultimately going out and doing things which very much look like politicking for the commoners.  Handling their very period and class appropriate issues - the storytellers we'ren't embarrassed that their king cleaned out stalls..that was part of his cv for godhood....but, ultimately, we think that particular historicist hypothesis was wrong because no evidence supports it and all evidence points against it.  


Finally...one mythicist explanation.  Hercules and the lernean hydra is a story about malarial disease.  It was a serious issue for ancient greece.  Every lernaean was hercules.  Every puddle of water was hydra.  Lernaen graves were...conveniently, in or between houses.  Endemic malaria has been confirmed by lesions on the remains, and..more broadly, by a mutation carried by greeks who colonized italy by the 8th bc.

So..there's a list of differences, not just between mythicist and historicist positions, but between competing historicist positions....and what physical evidence would (or could) flesh out a given hypothesis...for your amusement.

That’s a lot of words to ignore the point.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, if I keep guessing, I'll keep getting it wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Like I said, if I keep guessing, I'll keep getting it wrong.

You’re a clever lad, I’m sure you’ll suss it out.

Boru