Think about this for a moment... the oral religion of Ancient Greece is the religion of the Dark Ages, and not reconstructable. Eric also seems to propose that the poetic tradition of the religion is separable from the philosophical tradition of the religion, and that the poetic tradition is somehow the more enlightened and correct, which is not only baseless, it approaches orthodoxy by almost making philosophical points of view heretical. Hesiod and Homer are from 8th century, and rise like the sun out of Greek's Dark Ages, but are followed by the natural philosopher Thales of Miletus and Pittacus of Mytilene, two of Seven Sages, in the 7th. Eric also asserted that Herodotus was part of the time of Hesiod and Homer. Some of this stuff is just wrong that he is basing his opinion on, and it is just not adding up.

You keep getting more and more facts wrong...

Homer & Hesiod were from the Archaic period of Greece, not Classical Greece.

Herodotus was a historian, not a poet. His "link" to Hesiod and Homer is that they drew from the oral poetic tradition, and Herodotus drew from the oral story-telling of histories.

And, you say there is a conflict is between oral and literate? You do know Hesiod, Homer, and Herodotus were all literate and wrote... right?

I'm not trying to assert you are claiming the poetic is separable from the philosophical and that the poetic is superior. I'm not trying to assert anything. You left me to assume when you failed to answer my questions, and that is what I was left with. Even in your long rant, you fail to make a clear statement as to what you where trying to put forth this whole time.

It would have been one thing if you made some statement that you prefer poetic interpretations of the Gods over philosophical, and as a result your opinion of "are the statues gods or are they representatives" is blah blah blah... but you didn't. You tried to make a historical claim as the what should be the correct interpretation, the basis of which we are still trying to pull out of you.

If all you are going to do is cry victim, claim I'm putting words in your mouth and whine about being unfairly treated, I don't have time for you. You can go. I'm not going to allow you to hijack the forum in that way. If you want to try and express you opinions a little better, you are free to do so. However, as you can see, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I am going to ask more questions. If you don't feel comfortable answering questions walk away. This is an educational forum, and statements of fact need to be vetted.

We don't all have to come to and share the same opinions, but when it comes to the facts that form those opinions... well... that's a different story. Opinions based on false, faulty, or incomplete information can be shown to be false.

Are you serious? I'm not talking about different interpretations of fact. I'm talking about a misrepresentation of facts.

You said you were referring to the Classical period insofar as this meant the ascendancy of the Olympic Gods and other Pan-Hellenic tendencies? ...the ascendancy of the Olympic Gods? So, what does that mean? On top of ambiguity of language we can add word play. The phrases Archaic period and Classical period have been in standard use to refer to specific periods in the development of Ancient Greece for probably a few hundred years.

There are a number of factors that separate these periods including everything from the style of art, the political landscape, and the development of the religion. In some ways it can be described as the difference between America pre-Civil War and post where the consciousness of what American "is" prior to the Civil War had people saying "the United States are," but after had people saying "the United States is." For the US, this line in history marks a shift in American consciousness from being a developing nation to one nation, just as WWII marked a shift for America being a world power. These milestones are important in understanding what we are talking about. You simply can't redefine things to fit your theories.

The problem with arguing authorship of the works of Homer is that we then must acknowledge that Homer may not have existed at all. You still have a collection of works dating back to the 8th century BCE. It doesn't change anything regarding an oral verses literate argument.

Hesiod is a different animal all together. I'm not aware of any great dispute over the authorship of his works. The big questions are "Who was Hesiod," and When did he live?" It is accepted that Hesiod lived some time around the 8th century, but there is a big asterisk next to it. However, all these questions over authorship and time period don't support argument, they harm it.

Then we come to Herodotus, who you some how want to not only link to a oral tradition, but include within it. It is a stretch by any measure. You're big proof that he was is that his works may have been performed publicly. Don't you know that the works of the philosophers are believed to have been performed publicly as well? You mentioned that Parmenides and Empedocles wrote their philosophy down as poems. Ever notice that Plato's dialogues are written as plays? Wouldn't that make Plato part of the oral tradition you are talking about?

I'm pretty sure I have an understanding of how you want to define the reconstruction of the Hellenic religion... as a revelatory religion based on an ambiguously defined oral poetic tradition. It is an interesting theory. I'm sure it makes sense to you, and it may seem to some people like the only plausible explanation for any religion. However, there is no proof of it. Hellenismos does not have a Moses, a Jesus, a Paul, or a Mohammad (PBUH). There is no figure in history that defined the Hellenic religion in the way these figures did for their particular religions.

Of course though, you have your built in ambiguity and word play into your argument. I have asked you to be more specific in describing your opinion and the basis of it, and you have avoided it. Therefore, you can now continue claiming I'm misrepresenting your opinion and making assertions, arguing against me making those assertions rather then clarifying your opinion.

I say you are playing the victim because instead of describing your opinion clearly, and the basis of it, you make comments like "I'd have hoped there would be a little more tolerance shown here for someone with an outsider's POV like mine," and "you accuse me of making ridiculous claim and spouting of ideologies and then critique me for assertions I'm not even making." You describe me both at the same time to be intolerant of your POV and misrepresenting it.

I did not come after you opinions guns blazing. I asked pointed and probing question about your opinions. In your posts you used words and concepts that some people may not be familiar with, and I was attempting to fish out your understanding of the phrases you were using, a clarification of your opinion, and the facts you based that opinion. It has been my experience, proven time and time again, that the more a person tries to sound intellectual or enlightened, the less they actually know what they are talking about. You have proven that again in this thread.

As I said in my previous post, if you want to try and express your opinions a little better, you are free to do so. However, if it doesn't pass the smell test, I am going to ask more questions. This is an educational forum, and statements of fact need to be vetted. I'm not going to to allow this to keep going as it has. The mission of this site is clearly stated. The rules of this forum are clearly stated. The posting guidelines of this forum are clearly stated.

eric wrote on 03/03/10 at 15:30:38:

Well see, then we are done here. You make ambiguous statements about the historical reality of the Hellenic religion, you have been shown to have formed these opinions based on false or incomplete information, and as a result accuse me of being a dogmatist.  This forum is filled with practitioners of Hellenismos with conflicting beliefs. Belief is not this issue.

Here is part of this site being for educational purposes. Dogma is established belief. Belief is any cognitive content held as true. A fact is a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened. Faith is a strong belief in the absence of facts or proof. A delusion is an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

You focused in on my statement that my understanding of what you are stating is the Hellenic religion as a revelatory religion based on an ambiguously defined oral poetic tradition. You did exactly what I said you would do. Not only that, you skipped over that your opinions are based of fallacies. Hesiod and Homer are not as you describe them, and your basis for including Herodotus would also include Plato and the other philosophers you seem to want to exclude from reconstruction.

You actually still continue to prove my opinion that you are wanting the Hellenic religion to be a revelatory religion based on an ambiguously defined oral poetic tradition in this rant.

You said Homer and Hesiod formed a Panhellenic canon. This is false!! For accusing me of being a dogmatists, you sure do want to create an orthodoxy. Granted, if someone is uneducated and/or new to the religion they may interpret Homer and Hesiod as scriptural canon, but that opinion would be based on limited information and/or Christianized concepts of myth.  

The reason I have an issue about your name dropping is that it doesn't prove anything except you know some names. What do English, German, and American poets have to do with the Hellenic religion anyway? If I say my opinion of the Hellenic religion is based on work of Burkert, Mikalson and Murray, what does it prove? Nothing!! Not only does it not prove that I read and understand their work, it does not prove their works support my opinions, or that those scholars share my opinions. Fact is, you keep proving you know little about the actual Hellenic religion, and no amount of naming names help to prop up your fallacies.

The two approaches are mutually exclusive. Your approach is nothing more than dressed up Romanticism, which is a rejection of rational and Classical ideals, and rejection of Hellenism.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but you make a great point Aias. Where is this separation for the oral and the literate? I think its true that all indigenous religions evolved from older oral traditions of pre-history. However, how does anyone know what those were outside of assumptions based on archeology? Written transcriptions of orally presented poetry... are we then just talking about orally presented? That makes television and cinema an oral tradition, and that is not what people are referring to when they are talking about oral teachings and practices of ancient 'primitive' religions.

Homer's Iliad and Odyssey would be (presumably) an originally orally told and past down story, which then was transcribed years later... probably a 1000 years or so. It still begs the question, if Homer is to be considered part of the "oral tradition," where is this separation for the oral and the literate?

Moreover, for all those who wish to use the Works of Homer as the Gospel according to Homer, every criticism of the Gospels can be made against the Iliad and Odyssey... questions of dating, authorship, later tinkering. From what I understand, the ancient Greeks were wise enough not to treat such works as scriptures, and it seems odd that any modern student of the religion would.  

This is hard to fit in, but since we view "idols" and "gods" somewhat skeptically, maybe it fits here.  There's not that great a transition between treating a stone as representative of a god and treating a god as representative of...what?

I assume spirituality would not exclude those who loosely identify themselves as atheists, agnostics, skeptics and such.  My argument is that the principles which typically subtend such positions are not adequate to give an account of the selfhood of the atheist himself.  I prefer to give the conventional arguments against spirituality or such Occam's razor because they presently seem to be themselves gratuitous.  Basically I'm controverting the atheists' argument to see what happens when atheists confront themselves.

This is not unusual now even among Christian clergy, but, as usual, they've found it very difficult to be open about what's on their doubtful minds.  This might be a useful discussion to follow for Hellenists who'd rather not be entangled in issues of faith and prefer the question of what warrants belief and, then, go on to speculate about belief itself.  Hellenismos shouldn't find such questions as alarming as do Christians or, for that matter, some Jews who haven't "secularized."  

I surmise that there are atheists wondering about whether or not there are still some insights about selfhood extant in religion who are not intimidated either by being attacked by atheists to whom the doubters of the doubters are not "atheistic" enough.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/daniel_c_dennett/2010/03/sk...

in Egypt where it was fed to the statue. but I say the numen