Classics Archives - Page 21 of 33 - Tales of Times Forgotten

The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax

The Shroud of Turin is probably the most famous supposed relic in existence. It is a 4.4-meter-long linen shroud bearing the image of a crucified man. Supporters of the shroud claim that it is the actual burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and that the image on the shroud is the true image of Jesus, created at the moment of his resurrection.

It is easy to see why this idea is so appealing. If the shroud were authentic, it would be a remarkable source of information about Jesus the human being. Unfortunately, we can be virtually certain that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax that was originally created in France in around the 1350s AD by an artist trained in the Gothic figurative style as part of a faith-healing scam.

We know this primarily because there is no definitive record of the shroud prior to the fourteenth century and the earliest definitive record of the shroud is a letter recording that the forger who made it had confessed, but also because of a wide array of other factors. For instance, the shroud doesn’t match the kinds of funerary wrappings that were used in the Judaea in the first-century AD or the specific description of Jesus’s funerary wrappings given in the Gospel of John. The fabric of the shroud has also been conclusively radiocarbon dated to the Late Middle Ages.

Additionally, the proportions of the figure on the shroud are anatomically incorrect, but they closely match the proportions of figures in Gothic art of the fourteenth-century. The bloodstains on the shroud are not consistent with how blood flows naturally, which suggests the stains have been painted on. Finally, the fabric of the shroud was made using a complex weave that was common in the Late Middle Ages for high-quality textiles but was not used for burial shrouds in the time of Jesus.

What Do Conservatives Really Mean When They Talk about “Western Civilization”?

The concept of “western civilization” has become something of a major political talking point among conservatives in the United States in recent years. Conservative commentators claim that western civilization is a glorious, wonderful thing that progressives are working tirelessly to destroy and conservatives are fighting honorably to protect.

In this article, I intend to take a deep dive into what conservatives say about “western civilization.” I’m going to examine their claims and assess how accurate these claims are. I’ll look at the things conservatives say make western civilization “unique” and “special” and see how “unique” and “special” these things really are. In the end, we will all see together what exactly “western civilization” really is.

Did John Milton Really Sympathize with Satan?

For those of you who do not know, Paradise Lost is an epic poem about the Fall of Man that was written by the English poet John Milton (lived 1608 – 1674) and first published in 1667. Even though John Milton was a devout Puritan, Satan functions as the main character for most of the poem. Milton portrays Satan as a larger-than-life figure: the Prince of Darkness, the enemy defeated but not destroyed, a cunning sophist with rhetoric as his greatest weapon, a haughty villian brimming with hate and anger.

Milton’s portrayal of Satan has arguably been more influential on modern ideas about the Devil than any other portrayal. Milton practically created the Devil as we know him today. In fact, Milton’s Satan so dominates the poem that many readers have come away with the impression that Milton himself sympathized with him. The English poet William Blake (lived 1757 – 1827) famously wrote, “The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil’s party without knowing it.”

Modern Stereotypes about Ancient Civilizations

I’ve been debunking popular misconceptions about ancient civilizations online for a while now. One thing I’ve noticed is that the vast majority of the misconceptions I’ve debunked tend to play into a some very specific stereotypes about what certain ancient civilizations were supposedly like.

It is clear that most people who haven’t studied ancient history think of ancient civilizations in terms of stereotypes. Thus, lots of people (and not always the same people) imagine the Egyptians as mystics with secret knowledge; the Greeks as intelligent, progressive, scientific-minded lovers of freedom; the Romans as perpetually debauched, horny, and violent; and early Christians as fanatical, ignorant, obscurantist destroyers of civilization.

All of these stereotypes are wrong to some extent. Most of them are wildly inaccurate. In this article I want to look at these stereotypes, where they come from, and some of the smaller misconceptions that feed into them.

Can We Know What Biblical Texts Originally Said?

One of the most commonly asked questions about the Bible is the question of whether we can know what the texts that make it up originally said. This question is of interest to a lot of people. Obviously, Christians want to know what these texts originally said because they believe that the writings included in the Bible are directly inspired by God and that they can teach people the right way to live their lives.

Meanwhile, many of us who aren’t Christians are interested in knowing what these texts originally said as well because we want to know more about the historical development of Christianity and about what the earliest Christians in ancient times believed.

I suppose, then, there’s good news and bad news for everyone. The bad news is that the surviving manuscripts of the texts included in the New Testament contain a wide array of overt discrepancies, errors, and later insertions. The good news is that, in spite of this, in the vast majority of cases, we actually have a pretty good idea of what the texts originally said.

For the purposes of this article, I will be focusing primarily on the texts of the New Testament because I know more about them and they were originally written in a language that I have personally studied (i.e. Koine Greek). Many of the general things I am about to say are applicable to the texts of the Hebrew Bible as well, but I will not be focusing on those texts here.

The Shocking True Origin of the Name “Philadelphia”

You’ve all been taught the name Philadelphia comes from Greek meaning “City of Brotherly Love.” That’s mostly true. What you haven’t been taught is the long, fascinating history behind the name. As it turns out, the name Philadelphia ultimately comes from a nickname given to an ancient Greek ruler of Egypt who gained notoriety for marrying his own full sister. The “brotherly love” in the name originally referred to literal incest.

Are Modern Greeks Descended from the Ancient Greeks?

One thing I’ve discovered from reading questions and answers on Quora is that people are bizarrely obsessed with the question of whether modern Greeks are descended from ancient Greeks. It’s a subject that inevitably sparks a great deal of heated debate, with various non-Greek westerners on one side insisting that modern Greeks are not true Greeks at all while Greek people and various others insist that modern Greeks are truly descendants of the ancient Greeks.

The question of whether modern Greeks are truly descendants of the ancient Greeks has a long, sordid history that goes all the way back to the nineteenth century. I have decided to weigh in on this discussion to give some relevant background information, correct some prevailing false assumptions, and, finally, give what I consider to be a sound answer on the matter.

Carl Sagan Was Really Bad at History

Carl Sagan’s thirteen-episode documentary series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which originally aired on PBS in 1980, is the most watched PBS documentary series in history. The miniseries, which is, broadly speaking, about the history and importance of science, has had a massive influence on both our culture as a whole and on individual people’s lives. Many people say that watching Cosmos growing up was what inspired them to go into STEM.

Unfortunately, while Carl Sagan may have been a brilliant scientist and a great science popularizer, he was an unbelievably terrible historian and, in the show, he gets a boatload of facts about history blatantly wrong. Because Sagan was a scientist with an established reputation, though, many people have assumed that everything he says in the miniseries must be correct and, as a result, these misconceptions have spread and become embedded in popular culture.

Perhaps the most influentially wrong segment in the whole series is a twenty-two-and-a-half-minute segment in the last episode about the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria and the murder of the Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia. In this one segment, Sagan manages to promote what seems like roughly half of all the misconceptions about the ancient world that I have ever debunked.

I wrote an article in August 2018 debunking misconceptions about Hypatia and another article in July 2019 debunking misconceptions about the Library of Alexandria. In both of those articles, I have noted that many of the misconceptions I debunk originated from Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, but, in those articles, I did not address Carl Sagan’s PBS miniseries directly.

I have therefore decided to undertake the ambitious task of going through the entire segment about Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria and correcting all the inaccuracies I come across. This should give you some impression of how historically accurate Carl Sagan’s documentary really is.

No, Groundhog Day Is Not of Ancient Pagan Origin

As you may or may not know, February 2nd is known as “Groundhog Day” in North America because there is a popular superstition that, if a groundhog comes out of his hole on February 2nd and sees his shadow because it is sunny, he will go back in his hole and there will be six more weeks of winter, but, if he does not see his shadow because it is too cloudy, he will stay out of his hole and winter will be over soon.

Every year, at the site of Gobbler’s Knob in the town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, a widely-publicized ceremony is held in which a groundhog named Punxsutawney Phil is brought forward by members of the Inner Circle of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club dressed in tuxedos and top hats.

The president of the Inner Circle then pretends to listen to Punxsutawney Phil, who allegedly tells him in a language that only the president can understand known as “Groundhogese” whether or not he has seen his shadow. The president of the Inner Circle makes a pronouncement of whether there will be an early spring or six more weeks of winter. It’s all a very silly affair and very few people, if any, actually think the groundhog can predict the weather.

Naturally, there are people insisting that Groundhog Day is of ancient pagan origin. This is, of course, entirely wrong; there’s really nothing ancient or pagan about Groundhog Day as we know it today. Nonetheless, people today are obsessed with trying to connect all modern holiday customs back to ancient paganism. People like to believe that the traditions we have today are ancient. In reality, though, most modern holidays customs are products of only the past few centuries.

What Was the First Novel?

There seems to be a lot of confusion about when the novel as a literary form developed. Many people think that the novel arose at some point during the Early Modern Period (lasted c. 1450 – c. 1750). Many works dating to this period, such as Robinson Crusoe, Don Quixote, and Le Morte d’Arthur are often cited as “the first novel.” The popular perception, however, is incorrect.

The novel as a literary form definitely dates at least as far back as the second century BC and probably dates to long before that. Not a single one of the works usually cited as “the first novel” is even close to being old enough to actually be “the first novel.”

The fact is, we don’t know exactly what the first novel was, but, since we have record of works that can only be described as novels dating as far back as at least the second century BC, anything written within the past 2,200 years can’t possibly be “the first novel.”