HW> -> DB> It struck me while reading Thucydides, that the Semite's view of 
 HW> -> DB> truth was what somebody coming back from the desert or mountains 
 HW> -> DB> said was the word of God.  Whereas, in the Greeks, when a leader 
 HW> -> DB> like Pericles or Brasidas speaks, he begins with what is already 
 HW> -> DB> well known, and pointing out related data, continues to conclude 
 HW> -> DB> what the truth is.  Faith in the authority of the speaker is not 
 HW> -> DB> relevant.                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 HW>  
 HW>    This is confused.  I take it you have not read the book of Amos 
 HW> --a shepherd. 
It has been years; IIRC, I thought the words of the prophets were 
spozed to be revealed to them by God; whether Amos was a shepherd 
or a king was not relevant.  The authority of the Semite prophets 
lies in their claim that they speak for God.  The authority of an 
author like Aristotle, Thales, or Plato, or leaders like Pericles 
and Solon, lies in a body of work which has proved both visionary 
and prudent, the truth following from the presentation of logic. 
 
AFAIK, there were hundreds of prophets running around the ancient 
world, just as we see them ranting on the street corners today; I 
am sure that some of today's prophets are correct in their vision 
of the future, even though the vast majority are dead wrong.  The 
fact is, that *randomly* some are bound to be right; so likewise, 
ancient prophets had some who were bound to be right... and as it 
is, the correct prophets are the ones that impress folks, who see 
their vision as God's word, and bother to record it. 
 
Now, how do I tell whether an ancient prophet was just another of 
these nut cases who happened to be lucky?  I am still confused. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------