Bible and Greek Myth (Own Answer on Quora)

Bible and Greek Myth (Own Answer on Quora) · Bible and Greek Myth (Other Answer, Own Comments) · More on Greek Myth and on the Bible

Q

Why do Biblical literalists cite the Bible as a historical record, but not count Greek mythology as historical record?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Biblical-literalists-cite-the-Bible-as-a-historical-record-but-not-count-Greek-mythology-as-historical-record/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8, 2017

We have clear records on Homer and Paul each writing texts that account for tales of miracles. Why is Paul's work considered by some to be a historical records, while Homer's is not?

Is this just a logical fallacy on the part of Biblical Christians, or is there something in the definition they use that separates the two sets of texts?

Same could be asked for many other texts that have clear literary/historical backgrounds, but cite the stories of religions other than Christianity (e.g. the Koran, Book of Dede Korkut, Prose Edda, etc.)

Yesterday

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Edit Credential

You have reached the daily limit for adding answers. Please wait before adding any more.

Today

Hans Georg Lundahl

none / apprx Masters Latin and Greek, Lund University

Answered 1 h ago

For the record, I am Biblical literal inerrantist (literalist might also be taken as excluding all meanings apart from the literal, which I do not, I just believe that the literal sense is always inerrant in the original manuscript of the hagiographer, so called autograph and that the correct reading cannot have been totally lost for any verse through copy mistakes).

And I do believe much of “Greek mythology” is historic record, even if seen through a faulty since idolatrous lense and the supernatural and parts of the natural perhaps too attributed to fake gods.

Bible and Mythology are Greek names for two collections, the Bible of texts and the Mythology of stories. They are names given by the adherents themselves.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Original author

1 h ago

“We have clear records on Homer and Paul each writing texts that account for tales of miracles. Why is Paul's work considered by some to be a historical records, while Homer's is not?”

I don’t know of any part in Homer where a miracle need be presumed.

Those where a “miracle” of some kind would be an at least likely explanation may have to do with demonic miracles.

When Ulysses changed appearance from old to man in his strength, I am not sure whether there was a quick dropping of masks covering the face (as Chinese do) or the work of demons.

It is not an indication that the work is not historic.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Original author

1:57 pm

Detail: “and Paul each writing texts that account for tales of miracles.”

The NT texts with miracles are not by St. Paul, even the miracles concerning him are mostly by St. Luke in Acts. Excluding very brief references to the Resurrection which is more fully treated in Gospels, mainly, and some reference to his receiving revelations.

Since attributing Christianity to St. Paul is popular among Muslims, was the one posing the question as specified in comment a Muslim? (Or ex-Muslim, see end of his comment, and I wrote this some hour after seeing the whole comment)