Literacy in the Ancient World and Christianity

[Magic Man]

OK, well, I guess we're done, or at least I am. If you can't see obvious contradictions in plain English, then you're not going to see our side of it. What you are saying is not completely compatible with what Harris is saying. I honestly can't see how you interpret it that way.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, well, I guess we're done, or at least I am. If you can't see obvious contradictions in plain English, then you're not going to see our side of it. What you are saying is not completely compatible with what Harris is saying. I honestly can't see how you interpret it that way.

Did you read the whole book?

I'd be delighted if you can use Harris' conclusions to argue against me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

lol, you're killing me!

Delighted.

 

[Magic Man]

Did you read the whole book?

If I tell you I don't like the color blue, it's pretty safe for you to assume that I don't like the color blue. If Harris makes a statement, I can take that statement to mean exactly what his words say. I don't have to read all of his other statements to know that he advocates that one statement.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If I tell you I don't like the color blue, it's pretty safe for you to assume that I don't like the color blue. If Harris makes a statement, I can take that statement to mean exactly what his words say. I don't have to read all of his other statements to know that he advocates that one statement.

Context is everything.

When you do this, you're simply pulling out what fits your prejudice.

Scholars will often present all of the data with minor assessments and then make major interpretations at the end which illuminate, enhance, or contradict that which comes before. Harris is also highly geographic and historical - what he says for one place in time may not apply to others.

 

[Magic Man]

Context is everything.

When you do this, you're simply pulling out what fits your prejudice.

Scholars will often present all of the data with minor assessments and then make major interpretations at the end which illuminate, enhance, or contradict that which comes before. Harris is also highly geographic and historical - what he says for one place in time may not apply to others.

Gotcha. So, when he says one thing in one part, he doesn't actually mean it. I have to read on to find out where he says "Fooled you! That was all just garbage, here are my real conclusions...".

 

[Troublemane]

Not if these stories were popularized in paintings, plays, music, street preachers, temples, talked about at the latrine or the baths, publicly idolized, had public festivals, etc. And if they didn't they were insignificant and as good as dead.

Thinking about this stuff in context, even a little bit, helps. Books are not the primary place for public knowledge before the printing press was invented in 1439!

The other messiahs were well known by the Romans and Greeks. Early christians freely compared Jesus to Hercules in an attempt to win over Roman and Greek converts, and it was common practice at the time when eulogizing a beloved philosopher to attribute a miraculous birth, a noble geneaology, miraculous deeds and so forth in order to appease the masses. Its like how today people go see movies that are atrocious, vacuous extravaganzas of special effects with little storlylines. ---if you want to give a message to the masses, you may have to couch it with big explosions and dramatic lies (ie miracles) in order for people to accept it. (People would not as readliy accepted the message of Jesus if he had been just a simple son of a carpenter.)

Just a few centuries later (notably after all the competing versions of christianity were wiped out), it was generally unknown by the average churchgoer that this ever took place. it still is inconceivable by a great number of average folks today that there ever were other messiahs, or there was a practice of "apotheosizing" a great teacher after their death.

However, after the invention of the printing press, As you noted A_E, :yes: there was an explosion of knowledge across europe, which lead to the Protestant Reformation. Once the Bible started to be published in the common languages, everyone started to form their own opinions, and the monopoly the Church had on thought came crumbling down. So the argument that Knowledge is Power is not only supported by you but history as well.:angel2:

 

[EtuMalku]

Forget about Harris and Pagels, back to the topic
AE: Are you disagreeing with my statement that uneducated people of that time were easier to manipulate into converting to Christianity?

 

[tomspug]

Forget about Harris and Pagels, back to the topic
AE: Are you disagreeing with my statement that uneducated people of that time were easier to manipulate into converting to Christianity?

This is a ridiculous assumption to make. How is literacy associated with intelligence?

For your information, the reason there was so much illiteracy through most of ancient times was because oral tradition was FAR more efficient and desirable, culturally. In Western society, of course, we prefer things in writing, but just because people didn't have a printing press, it's very simple-minded to assume that people were therefore uneducated and easy to manipulate.

The only way your idea works is if the people hearing the message are only getting it from one source. However, if I am correct that oral tradition was prominent at the time, than people would be hearing oral traditions from MULTIPLE sources, making it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to manipulate people. So your point only makes sense if there was no tradition at all for passing on literature, which I find highly unlikely to be the case.

 

[Magic Man]

This is a ridiculous assumption to make. How is literacy associated with intelligence?

For your information, the reason there was so much illiteracy through most of ancient times was because oral tradition was FAR more efficient and desirable, culturally. In Western society, of course, we prefer things in writing, but just because people didn't have a printing press, it's very simple-minded to assume that people were therefore uneducated and easy to manipulate.

The only way your idea works is if the people hearing the message are only getting it from one source. However, if I am correct that oral tradition was prominent at the time, than people would be hearing oral traditions from MULTIPLE sources, making it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to manipulate people. So your point only makes sense if there was no tradition at all for passing on literature, which I find highly unlikely to be the case.

We've heard it, Tom. No one here has said that illiterate people are less intelligent. However, there is plenty of reason to say that illiterate people have less knowledge. Then you just make the connection that lesser-educated people are more willing, in general, to believe what more-educated people tell them. It's not a question of intelligence.

 

[EtuMalku]

Are you disagreeing with my statement that uneducated people of that time were easier to manipulate into converting to Christianity?

Do you guys actually read what I post or what?
Nowhere in my post do you find the words literacy or intelligence
As far as oral tradition being FAR more efficient and desirable?
Try telling that to the Egyptians and take a look at the voluminous works that were created by the Greek scholars . . . the reason the early converts clung to oral tradition was 'BECAUSE THEY WERE ILLITERATE!!" Not much of a choice I would say.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Forget about Harris and Pagels, back to the topic
AE: Are you disagreeing with my statement that uneducated people of that time were easier to manipulate into converting to Christianity?

That's what I thought that I had been doing...