The reliability of the Ancient Greek-Roman Literature.

It's a known fact now that we don't possess any original copy of the so called "Ancient Greek" and Roman literature texts and the earliest copies of them were not writen before 10'th through as late as 15 century AD. After studing them for a number of years, I have come to the conclusion that the writing of these texts has been performed from the clergy of the respectively Eastern and Western Roman Church and the writing is NOT in the language of the so called Ancient Hellenes and Ancient Romans as mainstream beleive, but in the language of these two religious institutions.
Also these texts preserve no accurate records of the historical events, places and people names, and being such they don't represent a reliable source on history reconstruction studies. Full of inaccuracies, mythical stories and phantasies, they often contradict themselves and most of all have been subject of a long history of manipulations.
Your opinion: 'should we rely on them'?

what?

can you be more specific?

reconstruction of History?

Based in other than known chronicles?

It's fairly common for literature from antiquity to conflate history with phantasy and legend. This is not an indication of its inauthenticity whatsoever. Moreover, linguistically we have fairly strong evidence of the differences between classical versions of these languages and their later ones, as well as a known genealogy through the Arabic world, or else Irish monks, or else the Vatican Library for most of these works.

So the answer is: No, we have good reasons to suggest the authenticity of these works.

JFWR said:

It's fairly common for literature from antiquity to conflate history with phantasy and legend. This is not an indication of its inauthenticity whatsoever..

Click to expand...

My debate is more focused in their inaccuracy rather than in their inauthencity. By the way what do you mean by their "authenticity"?

Moreover, linguistically we have fairly strong evidence of the differences between classical versions of these languages and their later ones,

Click to expand...

And what do these ""differences"" consist of in your opinion?

Also, I want to place another question to you, how come all these books ""forget"" to mention very significant information, like the following attested by a proven REAL author named Pietro Bogdano THE MACEDON, in his book: Cuneus prophetarum (1685)



where he gives an exact date when Alexander the Great ruled over the ALBANIANS:

3623 Leka i maξ prej Petrelè nd' Arbene ɛu fiλ' Monarchijne vet nùe Mattiet.

Click to expand...

3623 Leka i madh(Alexander the Great) from Petrele(and not Aegean Pella) among ALBANIANS starts his Monarchy in Mat(Region in Albania, and not Ἠμαθία close to Pierea)

Bye everybody.

After registering and participating in few discussions, the threads where I participated were strangely closed which to me is a clear sign of censure. I understand the frustation of someone who is either very conservative or wants to hide the truth, or both, but I guarantee the censors, You can never hide the truth permanantly, eventually your action will return back as a boumerang to you. Take care everybody.

How did he attest the correct date, if he lived 2000 years after Alexander! Did he talked to his grandfather who lived for 1500 years? Please stop, this is crazy!
This is in parallel with recent "Da Vinci Code" book about Leonardo Da Vinci painting "real" last supper of Christ, lol. Yes, he knew exactly how it was because he lived waaaaaaaaay back......, right, 1500 years after Jesus.

Actually we know much more about these two cases, and ancient times in general, from archeology than Da Vinci or Bogdano knew about in their works, what they thought they knew.

Zeus10 said:

After registering and participating in few discussions, the threads where I participated were strangely closed which to me is a clear sign of censure. I understand the frustation of someone who is either very conservative or wants to hide the truth, or both, but I guarantee the censors, You can never hide the truth permanantly, eventually your action will return back as a boumerang to you. Take care everybody.

Click to expand...

Zeus, nobody on this forum is censoring anything. Neither the other moderators nor me have any intention to hide anything, certainly not the truth. But, I have to ask you in all honesty, what do you think has it to do with "truth" if you come here to disseminate your revisionistic vision of history and linguistics? What has it to do with "truth" if you come here with the foregone conclusion that all methodology that linguistics has developed for the past 150+ years must be wrong, not because there are some inherent flaws in it, because because it does not support your Albanocentric vision of history? If linguistics got it really all that wrong about the Indo-European languages then it's only logical that they got things equally wrong about any other language family. Where is your evidence?

I mean, if we go back to the thread topic, your basic message is that the language in Greek/Latin literature does not represent the actual spoken languages but in your opinion these are "artificial" languages (without any evidence of the contrary). Why do you confine this to Greek an Latin? Should we not argue the same for other ancient or old literature? For example, let us include the Avesta or the Rigveda as well, or for instance, more recently the Beowulf saga. By your logic, we might say that the Beowulf saga is an "artificial" scholarly language and that the real language spoken by the Anglo-Saxons was a very different one. By what evidence could I propose that?

Zeus10, there are thousands of fragments of historical writings from ancient times that have been uncovered in archeological digs that date to B.C. There are temples and grave stones with ancient writings. There is enough archeological information to back up most of the medieval writers. We do see some embellishment, but we can compare multiple source who are writing about the same event and extract out the bias. The oldest complete text is about Orpheus and it's dated to 350BC.

That is found by archaiologists in an archaiological were not one not2 but many archaiologists search and many international students help them so to have their diplomas

it is estimated at 350-400 BC by physic science

It is a curse, a καταδεσμος a defixion

as all curses even today, to have power they must be written and then burried.

since it is a curse of a woman to a man it is surely not a Theocratic not a Lingua Franga but common every day language

if someone can give another better meaning by using other than Latin or Greek language then go ahead and take the prize of an ISDN or a PHd or Nombel prize.





that is from 800-700 BC from south Italy and not from 10th century AD

by reading that we can understand the exelixis (evolution if you want) not only of Alphabet but in Humanity and how every day common life was.

I agree that the above language is not spoken today as in that Days, that is because language is a vivid organ, an alive organisation.

Mistakes and inaccuracy happens in all sciencies, that is to Certify statitstic theory,
but above 95% (I don't say 99.99%) science is correct.

A SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY IS NOT A STERILE MACHINE OR A ΜΙΧING THAT EXACTS RESULTS
RESULTS SHOULD BE ACCORDING INPUT DATA AND MUST BE FOUND ALL THE TIME, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS PLAY THE ROLE OF RULE (ΚΑΝΩΝ) SATISFACTION

the search in a variety must be done in all varieties to give an accepted rule of how the model works



PS
I remember when I watch a lecture of M Andronikos
when Manolis Andronikos found the famous Vergina Tombs and the rest he read Literature of Atheneans
He read that Athenean once march against Makedonians they went to Olynthos (athenean friend city) and from there sail quiet to surprise Makedonians, they needed 3 hours from North parts of Pydna to reach Pella. that means a distance about 30 KM
that creates a scientic problem on who is Pella and who is Aeges since Pella distance from sea 4-5 hours and Aeges 3-4 hours

that is an inaccuracy, in that science uses other methods to explain better, like other written or toponyms or physics etc.


When we read Xenophon we have measures of stadia or παρασαγγες, if you can calculate then you see that dinstances that are describe are accurate
it is like Xenophon to say we are in Village A we moved East about 20 and found city B

why these is not accurate?


PS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_28

original 2nd century AD copy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_27

1rst century AD

Authentic masterpieces from 2000 years before.