Some years before the publication of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" the BBC's Timewatch programme did a pretty decent job of discrediting the other people's theories upon which his badly written "blockbuster" was based. It's worth watching again, if only for the all too prophetic words at its close from Professor Martin Kemp, the art historian, and in particular Rober McCrumb, then literary editor of The Observer, concerning the way "history" as a subject matter for public consumption was going.



And Tony Robinson's post-Brown programme which also deconstructs much of the bullshit:

On a 'religious' matter, Nordmann, we are in the rare position of being in agreement.

Bart Erhman also deals quite well with the later writings on Mary Magdalene in his book 'Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene'. He comments in the book that if he was giving a lecture on Mary Magdalene he would get twice the attendance that he would for one on either Peter or paul.

regards

Tim

Religious sensibilities might have been offended by the contents of the initial hoax and then the actions of the queue of people, whether gullible or cynical, who subsequently profited from its exploitation. But to me the worst victim in all this was the study of history itself.

McCrumb makes the valid point back in the 1996 programme that these books represented one facet of a growing trend in which the appearance of historical research was used to disguise hollow supposition and the result marketed to a general public as "history". Robinson's repeated use of the clip in which Dan Brown emphatically declares as fact material which has already been proven counterfeit is a graphic and clever affirmation of McCrumb's point.

When assertion is portrayed to be indistinguishable from truth then it can only be the latter which suffers in the process, and the damage to the process of identifying truth can be almost irreperable in some instances. Ironically, in the light of your statement that we are in agreement over a "religious" matter (though I acknowledge your use of hypotheses to indicate that this description cannot really be applied in this case) it is in fact identical an objection to that which I harbour against religious theorists.

"A parody of history, sadly the direction history is going these days". How very true those words have turned out to be. PG springs to mind, amongst others.

There has always been a market for pseudo-history, and maybe even a market larger than for actual history in all honesty. What has happened in recent times is that more and more books which would have resided under "occult" or "legend", or for that matter "revisionist history" or "religion", have made it over to the "history" category and are often the brands most pushed within it at any one time. In even more recent times there has also been a migration of historical fiction over to the main shelf too, with fiction authors such as the one you name even contending that their research is as thorough and as valid as actual historians in order to justify that marketing.

When Antony Beevor's excellent book "The Fall of Berlin 1945" became an unexpected best seller about eight years ago I remember being in a reputable bookshop in London where the proprietors pandered to this trend by having a category called "historical interest". There they had a shelf with the books ordered by popularity. Beevor's book, an actual history book, was the highest of its kind in fourth place. Above it was "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" then mounting a sales comeback on the basis of the book in first place - Dan Brown's badly written fictional treatment of the former. Sandwiched between them was a book "The DaVinci Hoax" which itself was a pseudo-historical polemic against its neighbours above and below it. I despaired for Beevor.

When did this start? The first I personally remember was the Eric von Daniken stuff, was it in the late 60's?

'it is in fact identical an objection to that which I harbour against religious theorists.'

I am not certain who would fall within your category "religious theorists" including myself!

von Daniken's rubbish used to be lumped in with "myth and legend" or even "astronomy" (in our local library). At one point there was so much being published in that particular genre that even our little library opened a "UFO" section and he found a natural home there.

The first one of similar ilk to be marketed as "history" that I recall was a thing called "The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross" in the early 70s. When it came out it was comments from historians which were quoted in the main in all the blurbs and in literary reviews, and the author was promoted on the basis of his rather limited scholarship as an "expert" in the "history" of Christianity - the word "historian" was only an implication away. Par for the course these days but singular at the time. However the book was a minor success and would probably not have been if it had been pitched primarily at the 70s version of "new agers". Others took note.

Tim wrote:

I am not certain who would fall within your category "religious theorists" including myself!

Theory concerning religion which is promulgated as historical fact without prior regard to proper standards of historical research is best described as "religious theory" and not "historical theory". Religious theorists make factual assumptions that are not supported by evidence according to the criteria normally and properly applied within historical research.

I remember the 'Sacred Mushroom and the Cross' well although it rather sank without trace. Its author John Allegro was an assistant lecturer in Comparative Semitic Philology at Manchester, and held a succession of lectureships there. He was also the first British representative on the international team working on the then recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls.

'Religious theorists make factual assumptions that are not supported by evidence according to the criteria normally and properly applied within historical research.'

The trouble is that an opinion as to whether or not the 'religious theorist' has or has not made factual ssumptions that are not supported by evidence according to the criteria normally and properly applied within historical research is a subjective matter that could be influences by the prejudices of the person making that judgement.

It is a question normally easily resolved by asking the religious theorist on what basis they have established something as fact which they then have asserted as fact.

Most religious theorists cannot avoid having elements of their thesis for which the answer to this enquiry is evidence of assumption, not deduction, though this was not implied in the promulgation of assumption as fact. Historical theorists, at least the honest ones, admit assumption and advertise assertion. The good ones try to avoid both if at all possible.

'Sacred Mushroom and the Cross' I vaguely remember being aware of but I reasonably clearly recall reading 'The Passover Plot' in the 60's. It impressed me with its arguments at the time, at least that part of it which attempted to set out a historical context for a Jewish Jesus and, if my memory serves, the author did not try to conceal the speculative nature of his extrapolation.

'Historical theorists, at least the honest ones, admit assumption and advertise assertion. The good ones try to avoid both if at all possible.'

If one takes the case of Hannibal Barca, as an example, and not one that exercises 'religious theorists', as far as i am aware, how much is fact and how much is assumption?

Historians tend to classify Hannibal (and Hasdrubal, his predecessor, and Hamilcar before him, and the events surrounding the lead up to and progress of the Punic Wars, and the elevation of Capua as a Carthaginian capital within Roman territory etc etc) as sound assumptions. Good ones cite their sources, namely near contemporary Roman chroniclers of their own history, and better ones point out the few disparities in these accounts. They are treated therefore primarily as safe assumptions from which to extrapolate historical theory, just as one does with established facts when they are available, but only if the previously stated qualifications are understood.

Should an historian assert - as I have read in one account recently - that, for example, Hannibal was homosexual, then this is an assertion pure and simple. It purports to have been extrapolated from inferences contained within the accepted accounts but since these inferences are subjectively attributed the resultant extrapolation cannot be classified as sound assumption. It is therefore not one from which further extrapolation would be useful or even adviseable in assessing its worth, even as possible fact. In the case of such assertions this normally restricts their currency as grounds for historical theory, at least pending some better corroboration through future discovery or research.

Religious theorists do not apparently feel themselves necessarily restricted in this regard at all when employing history as an evidence for what they assert.

All the above concerning Hannibal [I assume you mean Barca – there are a lot of Hannibals in Carthaginian history], Hasdrabul [the Fair] and Hamilcar [Barca] are based on assumptions from one or two pro-Roman sources, the fullest of which having been written 200 years after the event. As to how good those assumptions are is a matter of subjective opinion.

The assumption you refer to concerning ‘Capua as a Carthaginian capital within Roman territory’, however, seems to me to be distinctly dodgy. According to Livy, who is not overly kind towards the Capuans it must be said, under the treaty between Hannibal Barca and the city that Carthaginians had no jurisdiction over Capuans, Capua was ruled under her own laws and magistrates, that no Capuan had to serve in the Carthaginian army, and Carthage was to hand over 300 Roman prisoners. Hardly the terms for a Carthaginian Capital.

Carthage, by the way, seemed to have limited number of first names and too many of them, at least in the version that has come down to us, start with an H. For example is Hasdrabul Gisco, who is attributed with commanding Carthaginian armies to catastrophic defeats in Spain and North Africa the same as the successful cavalry commander in Hannibal Barca’s army at his great victories in Italy?

The trouble with your reference to ‘Religious theorists’ is that I am not clear as to whom you encompass within that term. If you are referring to authors such as Dan Brown, John Allegro, Freke and Gandi then I would probably agree. However, you may also be including those such as Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, N.T.Wright, Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz; in which case I would disagree.

You cannot escape the fact however that in the comparison of what we might call "received historical narratives" (stories which for better or worse have been taught as history) there are some which ring truer than others, and it is this essential qualitative difference which not only invites credibility but also justifies varying approaches which might be taken in attempting to verify them through whatever means might currently still be available. Hannibal (and I mean the one you know I mean) occupies a credibility zone which others do not, and your dismissal of the near-contemporary accounts as "presumption" is one that I imagine would invoke derision. Though not from me, I hasten to add! I admire a sceptical and inquisitive mind and just wish such healthy inquiry could be directed at some more deserving historical examples! You know to whom I am referring.

Religious theorists come in all kinds of shades and forms, though essentially the gradiation refers to the extent to which their theories are influenced by their religious convictions, not that they can much avoid that dilemma.

I would question your description of an account written 200 years after the event (Livy) as ‘near contemporary. You do after all refer to ‘near-contemporary accounts’ [plural] and there are only two. Even describing Polybius as near contemporary is questionable and Polybius’ account is incomplete. Paul, by comparison, was a contemporary of Jesus, even if they never met, was in Judea a short time after Jesus’ crucifixion, and met Jesus’ disciples and his brothers. Paul’s letters could reasonably be described as ‘near contemporary’. I did not even use the word "presumption" so the only thing to ‘deride’ is your error, not that I would do any such thing. I presume, however, that you accept that what you stated about Capua was in error as you have not referred to it again.

Your comment that ‘there are some [received historical narratives] which ring truer than others’ is entirely correct for the individual, but is also entirely subjective to the person to whom it rings true. You may feel the idea that a Carthaginian general could take an army of 50,000 foot, 9,000 horse and 37 elephants to attack Rome, losing a lot of them on the way, and then win 3 great battles as entirely reasonable. I might look at the war record of Carthaginian armies in the 2nd Punic War, other than those attributed to HB, and ask for some archaeological evidence, a contemporary source, a Carthaginian source, a Selucid source before I accept it. Particularly when the two 'non-near contemporary' sources cannot even agree on the route that HB is supposed to have taken.

‘Religious theorists come in all kinds of shades and forms, though essentially the gradiation refers to the extent to which their theories are influenced by their religious convictions, not that they can much avoid that dilemma.’

Can you demonstrate that your views concerning ‘You know to whom I am referring’ are not influenced by your non-religious convictions? By the way I did direct my ‘sceptical and inquisitive mind’ on ‘You know to whom I am referring’ but it is just that I came to a different conclusion to you. I would also add that I suspect that I have directed my ‘sceptical and inquisitive mind’ on ‘You know to whom I am referring’ for considerably more time than yourself. Given our differing views on the importance of ‘You know to whom I am referring’, that is not entirely unreasonable, both ways.

Regards

Tim

Quote :

Even describing Polybius as near contemporary is questionable and Polybius’ account is incomplete.

Alas, it is. But then Polybius was using as one of his sources a seven volume work by Sosylus, the Greek historian, specifically concerning the Hannibal campaign. Sosylus was not just a contemporary, he accompanied Hannibal in his invasion of Italy in his role as the Carthaginian's Greek tutor and took notes along the way. Polybius even crticises Sosylus for when he strays into hyperbole and therefore only cites references he says he can verify according to his own available means or which are accepted to have been written as a record, not a polemic - and in fact this data thus selected encompasses nearly everything he then writes about the campaign himself to which we still have access. Now of course this could all be lies on everyone's part, or a huge conspiracy over two centuries on the part of a whole slew of unrelated historians, but I would rather see it as a typical sequence of philological sourcing the likes of which we rely upon very much when assessing the veracity of ancient historical claims.

This does not compare with polemic, another style of writing much vaunted in classical times, and nor should the two be confused. The point of polemic was quite other from establishing historical data or recording it. Polemic was essentially an aggresively argued philosophical stance, often with very real political implications. Paul's writings fit into that category much more than any other. We do not use polemic to presume knowledge of historical data. Polemics are insufficient as sources in their own right and when lacking substantive corroboration for their factual claims are themselves of extremely limited use in that respect too.

Given that there is no proof that Sosylus' history existed there is no proof that Polybius used it. Being near contemporary is not the same as using a near contemporary source. I have used a number of near contemporary sources for my account of the PLUTO pipelines but that does not make my account near contemporary. Geoffrey of Monmouth claims to have used 'a certain very ancient book written in the British language' while 1 Kings claims to have used 'the book of the annals of Solomon'. I doubt if you would accept either claim.

Of the letters that are credited to Paul and widely accepted by scholars as having been written by him, except in two cases, they were written to respond to specific circumstances in specific churches. The historical references to Jesus, his disciples and his family are generally incidental to the main thrust of the letters. I seem to remember that you were an enthusiast for Paul as a supporter of your views until I pointed, more than once, how totally incorrect was what you had written about him. Paul was, of course, initially an opponent of Christianity before his conversion. Scholars seem to find him a very reliable source concerning Jesus. You have, however, very good reasons for not doing so, but not because of any objective assessment of those letters.

Tim

Quote :

I seem to remember that you were an enthusiast for Paul as a supporter of your views

Now that is a prospect I had never imagined! I can think of several ancient scribes who I would be honoured should they come back from the dead and rally to my disquisitive side in a debate. The Cilician however would not be amongst them, at least I should hope not!

Quote :

Given that there is no proof that Sosylus' history existed there is no proof that Polybius used it.

Here is the nub of it. If you discount its existence then you maintain that Polybius invented it. There is no in-between view which adheres to common sense. If you cannot apply common sense to historical analysis then it is not analysis at all.

However if you stick with the "invention" theory then you are obliged to provide justifications for that standpoint. To the best of my knowledge if this is the view that you hold then you are extremely alone in doing so. It would be interesting to hear your justifications nevertheless.

'Now that is a prospect I had never imagined! I can think of several ancient scribes who I would be honoured should they come back from the dead and rally to my disquisitive side in a debate. The Cilician however would not be amongst them, at least I should hope not!@

It was your claim that Paul never mentioned Jesus that you were enthusiastic about. Your exact words were

"Probably most damning of the lot is the fact that Christianity’s greatest spreader of the faith in the early days - Paul, a near contemporary - seems never to have heard of him. he talks a lot about god, but nothing whatsoever of Jesus the character. He doesn't quote him once, says zilch about any miracles, teachings or crucifixion"

Your enthusiam, as I said declined once I pointed out the error of the above.

Unlike with Jesus no one has any prejudicial reasons for suggesting that Hannibal Barca did not exist. There is, however, no more archaeological evidence for the existence of one than the other despite the fact that HB was supposed to have been a great leader of a nation who first campaigned in Spain, then took a large army into Italy (losing half of it on the way), campaigning there for nearly 20 years etc. Jesus was just one person after all. There is the lack of contemporary sources, the reliance entirely on sources from the Roman side and the fact that the two sources regularly contradict each other. Paul, as you say yourself is a near contemporary [actually contemporary] would be more accurate, who was in Jerusalem and Judea soon after Jesus’ death, met Jesus’ followers and brothers and was originally hostile to Christianity.

The Roman historian Michael grant points out that if people who questioned the historicity of Jesus applied the same ‘scepticism’ to other persons from the ancient period then they should question their existence too.

“This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”

One of Polybius’ pet theories was that history moves in cycles, history repeats itself one could say. One aspect of this cyclical history was the rise and fall of empires. Polybius has Scipio at the sack of Carthage envisioning a similar fate for Rome. Polybius is also at times a believer in fate as personified by the goddess Tyche. He writes, for example, ‘How, by reading merely a history of Sicily or Spain, can we hope to learn and understand the magnitude of events or, more importantly, what means and what government Tyche has employed to accomplish the most astonishing feat of our times, something quite unprecedented, that is, to bring all the known parts of the world under one rule and dominion?’ One could by the way question the accuracy of that statement as much as the part of Tyche in it.

Remove HB from the story and you have a won sided war [how many battles do Carthaginian armies win without HB?] but with HB in the story you have Carthage, after Cannae, seemingly dominant and Rome on her knees, but then fate intervenes and we end up with Carthage destroyed and Rome triumphant – a much more satisfying story. We are, as you know, missing the book 7 of the Histories but if we move to Livy who credits Marharbal with the following statement ‘”You know, Hannibal, how to win a fight; but you do not know how to use your victory.” It is generally believed that that day’s delay was the salvation of the City and the Empire.’ Tyche intervenes and it is Carthage that is brought low not Rome – great story but is it history or a drama?

Tim

ps will get back on the subject of Paul and Polemics when I have the time, have decided to drop out of the 'Power of Myth' debate due to lack of time.

Is this the same Michael Grant, the numismatist turned "popular" historian, who rather offended historical scholars with his summary of ancient historians which said; "History was little more than rhetorical invention; capitulating to popular demand, historiography was essentially rhetoricalintended to entertain."

A handy point of view for someone who, in his over 50 books covering every period of history from the early Bronze Age to the fall of the Roman Empire and cultures as diverse as Classical Greece, Rome, Israel, Persia and (if I remember correctly) a very comical volume about the "Irish Gaels", always reserved the right to tell his reader what he (Grant) really "knew" his ancient source was actually trying to say. In fact he wrote an entire book called "Greek and Roman Historians" which had as its subtitle "Information and Misinformation" and in which he argued that all said historians, from 500 BCE right up to 300 CE, were essentially untrustworthy as it was in all their interests to misinform and even disinform. Luckily for the reader Grant was at hand to tell us which bits were phoney and which bits were reliable (not that many other scholars would necessarily have agreed) and, of course, since he had gone on record in a previous book saying that the gospels were historical treatises by ancient standards, just ignored them completely in his sweeping dismissal of all such treatises as dodgy.

But this historicity of Jesus issue is not actually relevant here anyway, in a thread which was started to highlight not how dodgy history leads to mythification, but how dodgy appreciation of history - even relatively contemporary history - does inevitably lead to a situation whereby myth can be more easily constructed. Since you have raised the issue of Paul, Jesus et al here (out of context, but no matter) then I would add that in the context of mythification it actually does not matter a jot whether there was an historical figure at the core or not, or even that Paul, were he our only source of biographical detail, provides us with little or nothing to go on either way. It was not the lack of detail, or the lack of reliable detail, which fed the myth in this case. It was the strength of the polemic by which the religion was advertised and spread which counts, and in which Jesus was an element deemed to be crucial.

That is the point which Grant (and many others, including you) seem to find difficult to grasp, or maybe just to accept. And it is one that deserves iteration and reiteration when one reads "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory" and such comments presented as valid counter-claims to the one that there exists a myth in which Jesus is a central character. "Myth" does not equate with legend or mere invention. To think it does is to fail abjectly in understanding, let alone appreciating, the human propensity to construct and integrate mythical belief into the very core of culture and society. Christianity, like all religions, conforms to this model, and like all myths before and in the future, this one too has required humans to propagate and sustain it over the years.

Since I now know that you are basing your dismissal of Polybius on an interpretation of Michael Grant's I'll forgive you your excess. Hannibal can breath easy for a bit longer, I think.

Read Moore's "The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius" for a rather more scholarly analysis of what we can deduce from the extant remnants of his work than Grant could ever have provided with his speed-writing broad-brush synopses for the popular market. It will help balance your excesses in that regard.

‘Paul the Cilician’

Interesting description. Paul in his letters describes himself as a Jew more than once, where does he describe himself in those letters as a Cilicilian?

By the way I am aware that Tarsus ‘no mean city’ is in Cilicia.

Quote :

Paul in his letters describes himself as a Jew more than once

Of course he did. So did many of the Greeks and the Romans who propagated Jewish religion and its offshoots. Yet they were Greeks and Romans too, whether they liked the appellation or not, and you can be bloody sure they used those appellations when it suited them too.

As you can digest from this I am a strong believer in "Life of Brian" being compulsory viewing for all who wish to get their heads around these lads. Any chance of enrolling Cleese, Palin, Chapman et al into your formidable society of biblical scholars?

You have not answered my question 'where does he describe himself in those letters as a Cilicilian?'

I cannot say I believe in the Life of Brian but I enjoyed it very much especially when John Cleese gives Chapman a lesson in Latin Grammar.

Telegraph Obituary on Michael Grant

Professor Michael Grant, who died on Monday aged 89, was a don at Cambridge, Professor of Humanity (Latin) at Edinburgh, and vice-chancellor at the Universities of Khartoum and Queen's, Belfast, but was best known as a prolific populariser of ancient history who published nearly 50 books on the Greeks, Romans and early Christianity.
Grant was always a lucid and erudite writer, who took the view that a study of the classical world was both "infinitely worth studying in its own right, without any consideration of modern analogies" and also that "without Latin, people are handicapped because they do not understand their past, and cannot therefore effectively plan their futures".
This attitude did nothing to impede his range, nor his appeal to the ordinary reader as well as the academic professional. As well as scholarly publications on the coinage of Rome (he was a distinguished numismatist), he produced biographies of Julius Caesar, Nero, Herod, Cleopatra, Jesus, St Peter and St Paul; accounts of the literature, history, art, mythology and social life of Greece and Rome; and found time to examine the Middle Ages and ancient Israel.
Books such as The Twelve Caesars (1975) and Gladiators (which was reissued recently after Ridley Scott's film) sold well in Penguin editions and enabled him to boast of a position as "one of the very few freelances in the field of ancient history" and, for the last 30 years or so, to work from his home in Italy.
The first of his general surveys, Ancient History (1952), and its companion Roman Literature (1954) immediately made clear his gifts of clarity and scholarship. Myths of the Greeks and Romans appeared in 1962, was twice updated, and was followed by Roman Myths. The Climax of Rome (1968) dealt with the neglected period of Rome after the second century AD; The Ancient Historians (1970) summarised the development - the invention, almost - of history; The Army of the Caesars (1974), The Twelve Caesars and The Roman Emperors (1985) covered the rule and supremacy of Rome.
But there was scarcely an aspect of ancient life which did not receive Grant's attention: The History of Rome (1978); The Jews in the Roman World (1973); Art in the Roman Empire (1995); The Classical Greeks (1989); The Hellenistic Greeks (1990) and many more were ground out by his pen.
Michael Grant was born in London on November 21 1914, the only son of Colonel Maurice Grant, who had served in the Boer War and later wrote part of its official history, before covering the Balkan Wars for the Daily Mail and rising to become an obituarist - though he was sacked for failing to get up in the night to update Kitchener's obituary in 1916. His mother Muriel was of Danish stock, and descended from Jorgen Jorgensen, who staged an unsuccessful coup in Iceland in 1809.
After day school in Queen's Gate, young Michael went on to prep school at The Grange, Surrey, where he found conditions Spartan, before going to Harrow, where he captained his house at cricket and spent three years in the Classical Sixth form, being taught by the headmaster, Dr (later Sir Cyril) Norwood, and E V C Plumptre.
The latter was a precise figure. When discussing the novel Quo Vadis - which took its title from the reputed words of the resurrected Christ to St Peter - he commented: "A classical Roman would have said Quo Is. What a pity that our Lord spoke such late and inferior Latin." Grant also made visits to Rome's ancient sights, which made an immense impact on him.
He went up to Trinity, Cambridge, in 1933, where he wasted his first year, but buckled down after failing to be shortlisted for a scholarship. Having won a slew of awards and graduated, he compiled a thesis as a research student (later published as From Imperium to Auctoritas), and travelled widely - aware that the impending war would soon make that impossible. In 1938, Grant was duly elected a Fellow of Trinity.
But then, as Grant noted in his autobiography My First Eighty Years (1994): "There was a singularly unpleasant war on in 1939-45 and . . . the Army seemed the right place to be in." Within a fortnight of the outbreak of war, he was in uniform, having met a brigadier from Military Intelligence. Grant spent his last evening at Cambridge with a friend "whose elder brother was soon afterwards shot dead at Catterick, when he returned to camp after dinner and forgot the password".
He trained with Anthony Blunt, who went into MI 5 ("a most unsuitable job, as it turned out, to give to him") and then worked beside David Niven as a duty officer at the War Office, where he was once compelled to rouse the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshal Lord Ironside, to tell him of the invasion of Norway and Denmark. He opened his call with the day's codeword, "Viking", to be greeted with the answer: "What the hell are you talking about?"
Grant was transferred to France, where he had the embarrassing task of organising "nocturnal amusements" for his commanding officer and, exhausted, the next day, lunched with the Duke of Windsor, who - to the commanding officer's horror - wore suede shoes.
He was then transferred to the British Council in Turkey, where he got to know "Cicero", the German spy who was valet to the British ambassador, Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen. Grant attributed Cicero's success to his rudeness, which meant no one suspected him. Grant himself succeeded (by eating a packet of butter before going out to meet ministers) in keeping up with demanding Turkish drinking habits, though not in persuading the country to join the allies. He also got his friend the historian Steven Runciman his first job, at Ankara University.
After the war, Grant and his Swedish wife Anne-Sophie, whom he had met and married in Turkey, returned to England, and after a period continuing his work for the British Council, returned briefly to Cambridge, where he supervised students on Athenian history while Bertrand Russell, who shared the room, relaxed before dinner. But he almost immediately accepted a post at Edinburgh University, where he remained until 1959. Grant relished his time there, though he found that the citizens, despite his name, would not accept him as Scottish because of his patrician demeanour and English background.
He also became a figure of suspicion after taking some students to Rome, where he bought them a drink and took them to the church of San Pietro in Vincoli - thus, in their view, attempting to seduce them with both alcohol and Papist idolatory. He received some teasing for once wearing an overcoat beneath his gown to guard against the cold.
Between 1956 and 1958, Grant took a sabbatical to become first vice-chancellor of the University of Khartoum, which he enjoyed, though arguments over "Sudanisation" and the Suez crisis did much to make his life there tiresome. He later regretted the restrictions imposed on the university by fundamentalist Islam, and the failures of Sudan's government.
From 1959 until 1966, Grant served as vice-chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast, where his dealings with Stormont and with the divisions between Catholic and Protestant students gradually led him to the view that Britain should withdraw from Northern Ireland (though it was not a sentiment he voiced until long after his retirement).
In 1966, encouraged by the experience of the journalist and MP Vernon Bartlett, Grant and his wife moved to Italy, where he bought a 16th-century house from Paolo Rossi, the Minister for Education. It was situated near Lucca, where Pompey, Crassus and Caesar met in 56 BC to hammer out differences which had grown up during the First Triumvirate; it was also convenient for Etruscan remains and for the amphitheatre (dating from 79-95 AD) nearby. From his book-lined study there, Grant continued to turn out numerous works, and also to travel widely, until ill health compelled him to return to England in his last months.
He received many academic awards and prizes from numismatic societies. His Who's Who in Classical Mythology (with John Hazel, 1973) won the Prima Latina. His most recent book was Sick Caesars (2000). He was president of the Virgil Society (1963-66) and of the Classical Association (1978-9). His club was the Athenaeum. He received the OBE in 1946 and was advanced to CBE in 1958.
Michael Grant married, in 1944, Anne-Sophie Beskow, whose father raised the first Swedish volunteers to aid the Finns in the Winter War against the Soviet Union. She, and their two sons, survive him.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

You have not answered my question 'where does he describe himself in those letters as a Cilicilian?'

Oooooohhh yes I did!

You have to use your imagination here Tim and picture an itinerant proselytiser of a Jewish splinter faith perched on his ass and being asked by John Cleese in centurion's uniform at the gate in to Corinth "Oi! Qui vive!"

I'd wager a thousand sistercii the answer wasn't what you now find in his "letters" to his mates inside.

Thanks for the obituary. Grant did spread himself a little thin, didn't he? One peer in a review stopped short of calling him the Barbra Cartland of historical non-fiction but still could not resist adding "even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit."

Quote :

I cannot say I believe in the Life of Brian

I'm pretty sure Python were not expecting that anyone should adopt their screenplay as the basis of a faith either, so I'm sure you're fine there. However if I hear you uttering any blasphemy concerning dead parrots I am afraid I am going to have to turn you over to the Spanish Inquisition. Nudge, nudge. Know what I mean?

Apologies for taking so long to come back, I am afraid that I do not have your ability for the speedy response. In addition I, as a lowly member of your site probably do not give it the same priority as you do as dictator. I see that, in addition to Monty Python, that you are a fan of Star Trek the Next Generation. It seemed rather strange that having created, in the Federation, a society that was essentially an image of John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’, the creators felt necessary to create a ‘god’ in the person of Q. Someone with god-like powers but without the positivess of God.

‘Polemic was essentially an aggresively argued philosophical stance, often with very real political implications. Paul's writings fit into that category much more than any other. We do not use polemic to presume knowledge of historical data. Polemics are insufficient as sources in their own right’

First who is the ‘we’ in ‘We do not use polemic to presume knowledge of historical data.’ I hope you are not becoming regal as well as dictatorial or even worst Thatcherite as in “we are a grandmother”!

Polemic: forceful verbal or written controversy or argument (SOD). Polemic is not actually as bad as it sounds, the same could be said of the true meaning of diatribe. Erasmus, for example wrote ‘A diatribe on free will’. Even if one could in validity describe Paul’s writings as Polemic that does not in anyway mean that they do not provide valuable historical evidence, especially with regard to matters that are peripheral to the perceived Polemic. Luther, another one of your non-favourites I think, agreed that some of his books were indeed ‘a polemic against the papacy’ but that does not deny them historicity. My first real concern, though, is that in order to arrive at a reasonable assessment of Paul’s letters as polemic then you would have needed to have spent a not inconsiderable amount of time studying them. It is clear to me, based on your posts, that great though your knowledge is in many areas that it does not extend to Paul’s letters. In fact I struggle to remember anything that you have said concerning the writings of this Jew with Jewish parents that turned out to be factually correct. Of course the royal ‘we’ could mean that your are embracing other scholars on this matter. However, you are not. I have, probably for the same reasons that you have not, studied Paul’s letters, books on them and on his life and Polemic is not a term that turns up. So I am afraid that you will need to come up with a better reason for ignoring the clear evidence in Paul’s letters for the existence of Jesus. I do not claim to have your expertise on myths but I am pretty certain that people who have brothers who definitely exist also exist in their own right. G.A.Wells. by the way, struggled with this problem in his books concerning Jesus’ brother James, this was of course before he ‘saw the light’ because of ‘Q’ [the common source used by Matthew and Luke not the god-like character in Startrek]. And decided that Jesus did exist.
‘Polemics are insufficient as sources in their own right’ Paul, of course, is not in his ‘own right’.

However, taking the dictionary definition of Polemic then I will agree, and as I said I have, unlike you, actually studied Paul, that some of his writings could be considered Polemic at the time within the true meaning of Polemic. If one takes, as an example, the letter to the Galatians. Paul was clearly quite furious when he wrote the letter. He also employed a forceful and controversial argument concerning the question as to whether or not a gentile needed to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul was struggling with the fact that the Jewish scriptures were quite clear that they did. However, the evidence that Galatians contain concerning the existence of Jesus have nothing directly to do with that Paul’s arguments. Scholars actually consider the evidence given in chapters 1 and 2 to be extremely reliable. If any of Paul’s enemies had been able to show that he was lying then Paul’s case would have been completely undermined. It is also clear from Galatians and other letters that Paul enemies were attacking him for not, unlike the ‘super apostles’ such as Peter, John and James [Jesus’ brother], having known Jesus during his lifetime. This would rather suggest that Jesus did exist otherwise none of them could have known Jesus during his lifetime!

‘But this historicity of Jesus issue is not actually relevant here anyway, in a thread which was started to highlight not how dodgy history leads to mythification, but how dodgy appreciation of history’

Actually you moved onto John Allegro’s book and that claimed that Jesus had never existed, a book that sank with virtually no trace.

‘Since I now know that you are basing your dismissal of Polybius on an interpretation of Michael Grant's I'll forgive you your excess.’

Actually no you don’t. My view’s on Hannibal Barca have nothing to do with Grant who, as far as I know accepts the existence of HB. If Grant wrote about HB, which he may well have done, then I have not read it. My views are formed from the original evidence which is, as I have pointed out both later and less diverse than that for Jesus. I quoted Grant mainly for what he said about Jesus, the fact that he referred to Polybius and Livy was just an added bonus. Grant was an atheist and so you cannot put down his views to religious prejudice. His extensive obituary notes ‘his appeal to the ordinary reader as well as the academic professional.’ I am afraid that neither you nor I are likely to boast such an obituary, even if my pipeline book does get published!

‘Read Moore's "The Manuscript Tradition of Polybius" for a rather more scholarly analysis of what we can deduce from the extant remnants of his work than Grant’

As I said, I have not read Grant on Polybius, however, I own and have read Robin Waterfield’s very recent translation of Polybius. I am afraid that Moore is a bit dated by comparison.

‘it actually does not matter a jot whether there was an historical figure at the core or not’

Actually it definitely does. However, by comparison it certainly does not matter whether or not Hannibal Barca existed. Rome defeated and destroyed Carthage and virtually nothing remains of it. There is by comparison a church 2 billion strong centred on Jesus as a historical person and I have yet to see anyone, including yourself come up with a viable alternative to explain its existence in the absence of Jesus.

What you and others on websites such as this seem to fail to either realise or accept is that the question as to whether or not Jesus existed it quite different from other popular website debates: for example those concerning the location of the battle of Brunanburh, the exact nature of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England, why Harold II fought at Senlac (or Cadbec) hill, who killed the Princes in the Tower etc? Those other debates exist at both a website level and at academic level. That is not the case with the question as to whether or not Jesus exists, which occurs very strongly at a website level but not at an academic level. Recent books I have read on the life of Jesus and the history of the church have devoted precisely as much space to the question of whether or not Jesus existed as would a history of Carthage or a life of Hannibal Barca devote to whether or not HB existed.

There is of course the odd ‘von Daniken's rubbish’ book such as that by Freke and Gandi but possibly the only writer at a more serious level was G.A.Wells. He was a professor of German, not a historian, and he has no changed his mind because of ‘Q’ and decided that Jesus did exist. I seem to remember dismissing ‘Q’ out of hand, once again rejecting without evidence the academic world when it has the temerity to disagree with you. In fact the problem I find with your complete argument is that it is, ironically, entirely based on your own polemic and lacking in facts. In fact whenever you do stray by accident from your obfuscating polemics into anything vaguely factual then you nearly always turn out to be factually incorrect.

‘Oooooohhh yes I did!’

Keeping it music hall and Pythonesque

‘Oooooohhh no you didn’t!’

Still I will fill in the answer. The only source that you would have for Paul coming from Cilicia is Acts of the Apostles as Paul does not mention it in his letters. He does of course say quite clearly that he is a Jew of Jewish parents, something you will find, if you were to read up on Paul, that scholars agree with. They also tend to regard Paul’s letters as a more reliable source than Acts. One fairly recent short biography of Paul I read relied entirely on Paul’s letters and did not use the evidence in Acts at all and so did not once mention where Paul came from. However, I am delighted that you find Acts to be a reliable source for people and places and note that Acts also states that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, something that nearly all scholars also agree about.

‘You have to use your imagination here Tim and picture an itinerant proselytiser of a Jewish splinter faith perched on his ass and being asked by John Cleese in centurion's uniform at the gate in to Corinth "Oi! Qui vive!"
I'd wager a thousand sistercii the answer wasn't what you now find in his "letters" to his mates inside.’

nordmann, I doubt if that JC centurion would be that interested in the subjects that involved Paul and the churches he wrote to, and they were frequently not his mates. You should read Paul’s ‘severe’ letter to the Corinthians, not to mention Galatians. However, if he was asked ‘did Jesus exist’ then answer would have been an emphatic ‘Yes!!!’

I will be ‘flying south for the winter’ or at least the next month and calling in on Caro, amongst others, so I am afraid that any answer you chose to post will have to be for the benefit of you or anyone else who may be following this thread, not mine.

Quote :

First who is the ‘we’ in ‘We do not use polemic to presume knowledge of historical data.’ I hope you are not becoming regal as well as dictatorial or even worst Thatcherite as in “we are a grandmother”!

The "we" is any of us who verbally communicate. Polemic is a method whereby we use this skill to prosecute argument, and is therefore not by definition related to evidential analysis - the system whereby we do (hopefully) adduce historical fact.

Quote :

Polemic is not actually as bad as it sounds, the same could be said of the true meaning of diatribe.

No one ever said it was "bad". What I did say was that it is important to adjudge Paul's arguments as the polemic they are and not dependable or even useful starting points for adducing historical fact. To me this is a "no brainer" as they say. Even Paul's stoutest supporters do not pretend that he was intent on establishing historical veracity for anything, and in concentrating instead on driving his argument home he actually managed to assiduously avoid even accidentally doing so.

Quote :

As I said, I have not read Grant on Polybius, however, I own and have read Robin Waterfield’s very recent translation of Polybius. I am afraid that Moore is a bit dated by comparison.

Dated? Can you expand on that assessment (when you come back from your holidays of course). Moore's book is not a translation of Polybius. It is an academically respected analysis of how, when and why his writings were used as reference from classical times up to the present. No one has since revised this work since everyone agrees it would be hard to equal, let alone surpass. Since it was you who inferred that Polybius can be dismissed as a sort of literary fraud I find it strange that you should in any case cite a translation of Polybius in defence of your argument, at least without expanding on why you do so. Did you deduce this fraudulence from Waterfield's book?

Quote :

By comparison it certainly does not matter whether or not Hannibal Barca existed. Rome defeated and destroyed Carthage and virtually nothing remains of it. There is by comparison a church 2 billion strong centred on Jesus as a historical person and I have yet to see anyone, including yourself come up with a viable alternative to explain its existence in the absence of Jesus.

It does so matter whether Hannibal existed or not. His contribution to the development of Rome as a super power in its day was seminal, and recognised as such even by contemporaries. To deny his existence places a huge responsibility on the counter claimant to explain subsequent delusion on the part of historians, both ancient and modern. When compared to the historicity or otherwise of a person whose principal function is as the central character and origin of doctrine within a faith-based religion then the stakes, historically, are actually much lower. Unless of course one fundamentally believes in supernatural events having actually surrounded an actual person, in which case of course the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate their veracity - being so at odds with what history and the laws of physics rather forcefully suggest to the contrary.

Quote :

I doubt if that JC centurion would be that interested in the subjects that involved Paul and the churches he wrote to, and they were frequently not his mates. You should read Paul’s ‘severe’ letter to the Corinthians, not to mention Galatians. However, if he was asked ‘did Jesus exist’ then answer would have been an emphatic ‘Yes!!!’

Can't see the centurion asking him that, to be fair. He'd be more likely to have asked what an 'umble little tent maker and his mates Silus and Timmy were doing with a load of bullion from Macedonia ('onest, it was a present 'guv!). However we know this didn't occur as Silus managed to smuggle the booty in and, thanks also to help from their mates Titus Justus, Aquila and the bould Priscilla, the funds meant that they all managed to outstay their welcome to the tune of eighteen months (Corinthian wine was world renowned, but of course that has nothing to do with anything). Until Gallio, the proconsul, got fed up hearing about them and turfed the lot of them out - the new love triangle of Paul, Aquila and Priscilla then heading off to annoy the Syrians.

Or am I interpreting the "facts" incorrectly?

Have fun down under!

Hi Nordmann

'Can't see the centurion asking him that, to be fair. He'd be more likely to have asked what an 'umble little tent maker and his mates Silus and Timmy were doing with a load of bullion from Macedonia ('onest, it was a present 'guv!). However we know this didn't occur as Silus managed to smuggle the booty in and, thanks also to help from their mates Titus Justus, Aquila and the bould Priscilla, the funds meant that they all managed to outstay their welcome to the tune of eighteen months (Corinthian wine was world renowned, but of course that has nothing to do with anything). Until Gallio, the proconsul, got fed up hearing about them and turfed the lot of them out - the new love triangle of Paul, Aquila and Priscilla then heading off to annoy the Syrians.

Or am I interpreting the "facts" incorrectly?'

In order for me to respond could you please provide the 'facts' in terms of references from Acts and Paul's letters.

I have learnt from expereince to have a certain distruct as to the accuracy of your statements when it comes to this period. I will also be pleasently surprised if you do provide the evidence. I do not think that you have dome so before.

You will see that in my book I do provide foot notes as to where I got the evidence from.

By the way we did have an excellent holiday and met up with Caro, Julie (who you may remember from the BBC pages) and Chris who you may remember from your rare apperances on Jiglu.

regards

Tim

Is Jiglu still operating? I remember having terrible trouble the last time I attempted to log in - quite some while ago now admittedly.

Hi Nordmann

The jiglu site is closed down but Chris Morriss set up a jiglu world history on googlegroups, he did send you an invite but I do not know to which email address.

regards

Tim

Hi Nordmann

'Can't see the centurion asking him that, to be fair. He'd be more likely to have asked what an 'umble little tent maker and his mates Silus and Timmy were doing with a load of bullion from Macedonia ('onest, it was a present 'guv!). However we know this didn't occur as Silus managed to smuggle the booty in and, thanks also to help from their mates Titus Justus, Aquila and the bould Priscilla, the funds meant that they all managed to outstay their welcome to the tune of eighteen months (Corinthian wine was world renowned, but of course that has nothing to do with anything). Until Gallio, the proconsul, got fed up hearing about them and turfed the lot of them out - the new love triangle of Paul, Aquila and Priscilla then heading off to annoy the Syrians.’

Read this again. It is certainly not polemic nor is it a diatribe, what it is though is

A complete load of old tosh

With your usual errors thrown into the mix

‘He'd be more likely to have asked what an 'umble little tent maker and his mates Silus and Timmy were doing with a load of bullion from Macedonia’

Wrong: Paul at this time would only have had the proceedings from his tent making with him. You once incorrectly said that Paul never quoted Jesus. Paul not only referred to Jesus’ saying concerning supporting people ministering, such as with Jesus and the disciples, but disagreed with it. Paul you see was ‘in tent’ [joke copyright TJW] on supporting himself. He only allowed one church, and that was not Corinth, to support him in his ministry. I would add that assuming, as would be more likely in this part of the empire, that the soldier was an auxiliary, that once Paul had mentioned that he was a Roman citizen that the soldier would have done a quick Eric Idle imitation and grovelled off.

‘his mates Silus and Timmy’ Wrong: Timothy and Silas were not with him at that time. By the way that is not how ones spells Silas!!

‘as Silus [sic] managed to smuggle the booty in’ Wrong: Actually Silas had remained in Beroea and no mention of any booty or bullion when he did go to Corinth– you really are getting carried away.

‘Titus Justus’ Is this one or two people? Titus took some gifts from the Corinth church to the Jerusalem church but Paul was not with him at the time. Another incorrect statement of yours in the past that I remember was Paul breaking with the Jerusalem church. When I pointed out Paul’s collections for the poor in Jerusalem you did you usual ignoring of any evidence that did not suit you.

‘Corinthian wine was world renowned’ I am afraid you are confusing the Corinthian Wine Club with Corinth. Greek wine good!! Remind me never to let you order the wine, your taste buds have clearly been ruined by too much Guinness in your youth.

‘Until Gallio, the proconsul, got fed up hearing about them and turfed the lot of them out’ –

Wrong again: Gallio threw out the Jews who tried to make a case against Paul. Paul ‘stayed on [in Corinth] for some time’ [after that].

‘the new love triangle of Paul, Aquila and Priscilla then heading off to annoy the Syrians.’ Dear me you will next be claiming that Dan Brown has got it all wrong and that Paul and Mary Magdalene had the love child! Wrong yet again! Paul sailed to Caesarea and Antioch while Priscilla and Aquila stayed at Ephesus.

Regards

Tim

What? No motorbike?

Sorry Nordmann but the reference to the motorbike passed me buy.

ferval wrote:

When did this start? The first I personally remember was the Eric von Daniken stuff, was it in the late 60's?

Emanuel Swedenborg's Earths in the Universe (1758) would be one candidate.