6 ms·

> It also conveniently explains why there is an ancient temple under the Forum with an empty sarcophagus dated to the 500s BC that appears to be dedicated to Ro

> It also conveniently explains why there is an ancient temple under the Forum with an empty sarcophagus dated to the 500s BC that appears to be dedicated to Romulus. Bad article. Here's a better one [1]. What the archeologists found was a shrine to a "holy king". Because of it's location and time, the title of "Romulus" was given to it by the modern archeologists. > So who was the first king of Rome? Who knows. That could easily be lost to history. After all, Rome started small before it grew to it's historical peek size. But if a figure like Romulus existed, there would be additional documentation that didn't show up 1000 years later. > And somehow magically convinced everyone else all the history they knew was wrong. And convinced all the people in the cities around them. Interesting hypothesis. Not really magic or hard to believe. It's not as if the entire population was literate. And a founding myth is quite useful for current politics. For example, using the founding myth of Romulus allowed for the ancient Romans to claim the Senate was created by him and thus divinely inspired. The parallel to this is the Bible, where the creation of Abraham and Moses served the original authors in endowing their king with supernatural power and origin. Much like the Egyptians did with their Pharaoh. It was a common practice in the region and at the time. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/possible-shrine-romulus-unearthed-roman-forum-180974240/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/possible-shrine-ro...

Amezarak 4mo ago
There’s no evidence it was done “all the time”; the most logical explanation is that all these figures were based on real people, even if their exploits and histories were exaggerated and mythologized over time, just as we see with figures like George Washington. The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story was true and central to their identity - and it worked time after time AND everyone else bought into it - is clearly absurd. Just pointless cynicism with no basis in actual human psychology.
- cogman10 4mo ago
  > The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story was true and central to their identity - and it worked time after time AND everyone else bought into it - is clearly absurd. It's really not. It's exactly how Romans changed from their Roman worship to christianity. It's how they converted the pagans. It's how Muslims were able to rewrite Christianity into their own religion. It's how Mormons did the same. This is such a fundamental part of humanity, it happens all over the place. Having a charismatic and/or politically powerful person say "This is how things are, believe it or die" does wonders to spread belief.
  - Amezarak 4mo ago
    > It's exactly how Romans changed from their Roman worship to christianity. The conversion of the Romans to Christianity happened because of real events, even if elements of the stories became mythologized. Or are you saying there was never any man named Jesus who was crucified? I guess you may as well argue that - both him and Paul could have been invented. > It's how Muslims were able to rewrite Christianity into their own religion. I think Mohammed was almost certain real, although I guess according to your standards of corroborating evidence, maybe he wasn't. The core of his story is not "rewriting Christianity", it's that he claimed to receive direct revelation and he used incorporated what he knew of what he believed to be true history. > It's how Mormons did the same. I think Joseph Smith is rather too well attested to claim he did not exist.
    - cogman10 4mo ago
      > The conversion of the Romans to Christianity happened because of real events Yeah, and in the process of converting to Christianity, Romans began rewriting their history and erasing their past. Which is exactly what we are talking about right now. You claimed "The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story was true and central to their identity - and it worked time after time AND everyone else bought into it - is clearly absurd." And I'm giving you clear historic examples where exactly that happened. But now you want to make it about whether or not the people that did that existed or not. > Or are you saying there was never any man named Jesus who was crucified? Likely a man named Jesus existed because we have non-biblical documents from the time period (Josephus and the Sanhedrin) recording that he existed. Further, there are parts of the biblical narrative that are indicative that he was a real person. The census story in Luke, for example, is a convoluted story that you'd only tell if there was a real problem with Jesus, that he was well known to be from Nazareth and not Bethlehem. Were Jesus a complete myth there's no reason the gospel author wouldn't just say "And he was born in Bethlehem as prophesied" > I guess you may as well argue that - both him and Paul could have been invented. Again, nope, because we actually have a fair bit of contemporary documents about the existence of both. Something we don't have for Romulus. > used incorporated what he knew of what he believed to be true history. Right, I'm not arguing about Mohamed existing, I'm arguing that he made up history which people believed. Or more precisely, his followers did. Mohammad was illiterate and the Quran was written some 50 years after he died. > I think Joseph Smith is rather too well attested to claim he did not exist. Joseph claimed to be a historian who documented the events of the ancient americas. He claimed to have found records of those events and "transcribed" a book. Quite similar to Romulus. And as it turns out, yeah, an entire religion of people believe him that Mormon and Moroni, Nephi and Lehi are all real people that really existed. I mean, almost uncannily, the events he wrote about were 1000 years in the past from him.
- michaelmrose 4mo ago
  Moses and exodus are completely counterfactual and at once central to Jewish and Christian mythology and identity. Our foundational stories are mostly lies because reality is depressing. Egypt exists even though the Exodus never happened. The mere existence of factual elements doesn't mean a foundational myth is real. Myths are normally interwoven with real elements. Moses is almost entirely distinguished as a personage by elements we know are nonsense. If you found a Jewish leader named Moses who lived in a different year who experienced an entirely different history you wouldn't have found the real Moses so much insofar as the symbol Moses is a reference to the myth not the hypothetical actuality. Likewise finding an early leader wouldn't mean Remus was real
  - Amezarak 4mo ago
    > Moses and exodus are completely counterfactual I don't see anything particularly counterfactual or unlikely about a group of Egyptian or Caananite-descended Egyptians leaving Egypt and returning to Caanaan, where they fused with an existing population. Can you explain this?
    - michaelmrose 4mo ago
      Egypt left for its era more than ample records. None of them record a mass population of Canaanite slaves escaping or existing, much less the direct interaction between any Pharaoh and a figure like Moses. If it wasn't dear to religion there would be no question about Moses being as imaginary as Noah.
- pqtyw 4mo ago
  > The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story Not on purpose, it's just that without written history it's very easy for stories to drift very far from the historical facts. There might haven been a Roman king Romulus who did something important (then again he might have been created over time by merging several figures - i.e. it's more likely that he was named after the city and not the other way around). We actually have real documented historical cases of this process occurring, the whole genre of Germanic heroic legends. They include various historical figures like Theodoric, Attila the Hun and others but the actual facts were mostly corrupted beyond recognition. Also this process took 500-800 years and developed in environment in which existing historical written sources on the same events did exist (even if they weren't directly accessible to most).

Amezarak 4mo ago

There’s no evidence it was done “all the time”; the most logical explanation is that all these figures were based on real people, even if their exploits and histories were exaggerated and mythologized over time, just as we see with figures like George Washington. The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story was true and central to their identity - and it worked time after time AND everyone else bought into it - is clearly absurd. Just pointless cynicism with no basis in actual human psychology.

cogman10 4mo ago
> The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story was true and central to their identity - and it worked time after time AND everyone else bought into it - is clearly absurd. It's really not. It's exactly how Romans changed from their Roman worship to christianity. It's how they converted the pagans. It's how Muslims were able to rewrite Christianity into their own religion. It's how Mormons did the same. This is such a fundamental part of humanity, it happens all over the place. Having a charismatic and/or politically powerful person say "This is how things are, believe it or die" does wonders to spread belief.
- Amezarak 4mo ago
  > It's exactly how Romans changed from their Roman worship to christianity. The conversion of the Romans to Christianity happened because of real events, even if elements of the stories became mythologized. Or are you saying there was never any man named Jesus who was crucified? I guess you may as well argue that - both him and Paul could have been invented. > It's how Muslims were able to rewrite Christianity into their own religion. I think Mohammed was almost certain real, although I guess according to your standards of corroborating evidence, maybe he wasn't. The core of his story is not "rewriting Christianity", it's that he claimed to receive direct revelation and he used incorporated what he knew of what he believed to be true history. > It's how Mormons did the same. I think Joseph Smith is rather too well attested to claim he did not exist.
  - cogman10 4mo ago
    > The conversion of the Romans to Christianity happened because of real events Yeah, and in the process of converting to Christianity, Romans began rewriting their history and erasing their past. Which is exactly what we are talking about right now. You claimed "The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story was true and central to their identity - and it worked time after time AND everyone else bought into it - is clearly absurd." And I'm giving you clear historic examples where exactly that happened. But now you want to make it about whether or not the people that did that existed or not. > Or are you saying there was never any man named Jesus who was crucified? Likely a man named Jesus existed because we have non-biblical documents from the time period (Josephus and the Sanhedrin) recording that he existed. Further, there are parts of the biblical narrative that are indicative that he was a real person. The census story in Luke, for example, is a convoluted story that you'd only tell if there was a real problem with Jesus, that he was well known to be from Nazareth and not Bethlehem. Were Jesus a complete myth there's no reason the gospel author wouldn't just say "And he was born in Bethlehem as prophesied" > I guess you may as well argue that - both him and Paul could have been invented. Again, nope, because we actually have a fair bit of contemporary documents about the existence of both. Something we don't have for Romulus. > used incorporated what he knew of what he believed to be true history. Right, I'm not arguing about Mohamed existing, I'm arguing that he made up history which people believed. Or more precisely, his followers did. Mohammad was illiterate and the Quran was written some 50 years after he died. > I think Joseph Smith is rather too well attested to claim he did not exist. Joseph claimed to be a historian who documented the events of the ancient americas. He claimed to have found records of those events and "transcribed" a book. Quite similar to Romulus. And as it turns out, yeah, an entire religion of people believe him that Mormon and Moroni, Nephi and Lehi are all real people that really existed. I mean, almost uncannily, the events he wrote about were 1000 years in the past from him.
michaelmrose 4mo ago
Moses and exodus are completely counterfactual and at once central to Jewish and Christian mythology and identity. Our foundational stories are mostly lies because reality is depressing. Egypt exists even though the Exodus never happened. The mere existence of factual elements doesn't mean a foundational myth is real. Myths are normally interwoven with real elements. Moses is almost entirely distinguished as a personage by elements we know are nonsense. If you found a Jewish leader named Moses who lived in a different year who experienced an entirely different history you wouldn't have found the real Moses so much insofar as the symbol Moses is a reference to the myth not the hypothetical actuality. Likewise finding an early leader wouldn't mean Remus was real
- Amezarak 4mo ago
  > Moses and exodus are completely counterfactual I don't see anything particularly counterfactual or unlikely about a group of Egyptian or Caananite-descended Egyptians leaving Egypt and returning to Caanaan, where they fused with an existing population. Can you explain this?
  - michaelmrose 4mo ago
    Egypt left for its era more than ample records. None of them record a mass population of Canaanite slaves escaping or existing, much less the direct interaction between any Pharaoh and a figure like Moses. If it wasn't dear to religion there would be no question about Moses being as imaginary as Noah.
pqtyw 4mo ago
> The idea that some random historian or politician simply convinced everyone his fiction story Not on purpose, it's just that without written history it's very easy for stories to drift very far from the historical facts. There might haven been a Roman king Romulus who did something important (then again he might have been created over time by merging several figures - i.e. it's more likely that he was named after the city and not the other way around). We actually have real documented historical cases of this process occurring, the whole genre of Germanic heroic legends. They include various historical figures like Theodoric, Attila the Hun and others but the actual facts were mostly corrupted beyond recognition. Also this process took 500-800 years and developed in environment in which existing historical written sources on the same events did exist (even if they weren't directly accessible to most).