The King of Ys Tetralogy by Poul and Karen Anderson is historical fiction with some fantasy. Thus, the Gods of Ys intervene, then withdraw, and the new God's ministers work miracles. The Time Patrol series by Poul Anderson is historical science fiction. Thus, gods are believed to exist and Time Patrollers sometimes have occasion to impersonate them. Most notably, Carl Farness plays the role of Odin and Janne Floris plays the role of Niaerdh. These two "Gods of Time" stories, as I call them, give the Time Patrol series a substantial core, grounding it not only in history but also in mythology.
However, it is important to remember that divine intervention is believed in not just in the historical periods visited by Patrollers but also in the twentieth century that is Everard's base. Was a man born in first century Palestine through the intervention of the Hebrew god and was a woman born in barbarian Germania through the intervention of Niaerdh? Many believe the former and I know some who would be willing to believe the latter.
7 comments:
Hi, Paul!
I certainly believe God is one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that God so loved mankind, despite our wickedness that He sent His only Son to become Incarnate as Man so that by Christ's literally true and historical Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection salvation would be offered to fallen mankind.
I know you have neo pagan friends and acquaintances, but I simply can't take paganism seriously, theologically or intellectually. I see no point in believing there are many gods when ONE God makes far more sense. To say nothing of how, from a historical point of view, no one has ever claimed to have convincingly SEEN and met Amon-Ra, Baal, Ashtarte, Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Thor, etc. Whereas, whether or not you believe the Gospels are reliable sources, NON Christian authors like Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius were, at the very least, recording the existence of Our Lord as a real Person.
No, my view is that of G.K. Chesterton in THE EVERLASTING MAN, that the rise of Christianity makes it impossible to truly take paganism seriously.
Sean
According to what I've read on the issue:
Those non-Christian authors recorded the existence of *Christians* and what they believed.
In particular the "Testimonium Flavianum" appears to be a later insertion by Christians.
Kaor, Paul!
But Tacitus, at least, seems to have believed in the existence of Christ, even if he did not believe in what the Christians testified to what Christ is.
Also, Henri Daniel-Rops, in his book JESUS AND HIS TIMES, was inclined to believe the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine, except "touched up" by a Christian scribe whose piety got the better of strict professional fidelity to copying only what he saw in a text.
To show what I mean, I'll quote from page 16 of Daniel-Rops book, where he quoted from that famous passage from Josephus' ANTIQUITIES: "At that time appeared, Jesus, a wise man, IF HE CAN BE CALLED A MAN. For he performed marvelous things, and became the master of those those who joyfully received the truth and many of the Jews and also the Greeks followed him. THIS WAS THE CHRIST. Being denounced by the priests of our nation to Pilate, he was condemned to die on the cross, but his followers did not renounce him FOR ON THE THIRD DAY HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN AS HAD BEEN FORETOLD BY THE DIVINE PROPHETS AS WELL AS OTHER WONDERS IN REGARD TO HIM. There still exists today the sect which has received from him the name of Christians."
As Daniel-Rops commented: "It is sufficient to say that if Josephus really wrote this passage, and in particular the parts italicized here, he proclaims by this his adherence to Christianity. For three centuries these lines have provoked raging discussions. Some say they are interpolated, since they break the thread of the discourse; others retort that the style is exactly that of Josephus. Eusebius, who knew and accepted the text at the beginning of the fourth century, is cited in evidence for it. Others retort that the early Fathers of the Church, Origen among others, did not know of it and even stated that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messias." This author ended by concluding: "It may be, and Mgr. Ricciotti inclines to this view, which is also upheld by Th. Reinach, that the passage is genuine but was touched up or "strengthened" in the second century by some Christian copyist whose zeal outran his scruples."
If you read the passage quoted from Josephus without the parts highlighted by Daniel-Rops, then it reads much more "cautiously" and is much more plausibly something Josephus could have written.
Ad astra! Sean
Oops! I meant to address my comment immediately above to Jim, not Paul!
Sean
Kaor, Jim!
Another thought I had was wondering if the highlighted passages quoted above from Josephus might have originated as marginal glosses or interlinear comments which copyists mistakenly thought were parts of the text. Mistakes of this kind has happened with other texts.
Ad astra! Sean
Plausible.
Kaor, Paul!
Determining whether this or that reading of a text is original or a marginal gloss is a big part of the art and science of textual criticism.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment