Historical Knowledge

[liamconnor]

This claim was made elsewhere

Quote:

Most of history is backed up by the following:

1. Many independent historical reports reported by clearly unbiased people.

This is a huge claim. A claim presuming knowledge.

So then,

Many? How many? Which? What report has zero, ZERO bias?

Who here as even read, in full, Josephus, and read even a single book by an historian on Josephus?

Who here has read a single primary source for Alexander the Great, and asked of it daunting questions about their reliability, and found satisfying answers to these questios?

Who here puts faith in their history books, and does not doubt the claims there made because most of them do not include the miraculous, and do not make any claims on their lives?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

"History is written by victors" - anonymous (often attributed to Winston Churchill)

"[History] is ... always mediated by the cultural presumptions that individual historians bring to the practise of writing it." - Thomas Holland, Historian

""What is history but a fable agreed-upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte, French general

EXAMPLES

Tacitus: "Any trained historian can readily see that Tacitus' depiction of Nero as an insane despot is not an entirely neutral portrait of the emperor and may have less to do with the absolute truth than Tacitus' political agenda." - - Professor Mark Damen from Utah State University Logan
http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist&c ... 01hist.htm

Polybius: "I would admit that authors should show partiality towards their own country, but they should not make statements about it which are contrary to the facts’" - [16.14.6. See Frank Walbank, Commentary on Polybius , Vol 1. (Oxford, 1957) pp. 11-12]

Josephus: "the need to please his patrons provided Josephus with an external bias that imposed limits on what he could and could not include in his work he regularly praised the roles of both Vespasian and Titus" - Eric D huntsman, Brigham Young University. Harold W. Attridge refers to Josephus’s Antiquities as a “propagandistic history.� - The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judicae of Flavius Josephus (Scholars Press: Missoula, Montana, 1976), p. 181.

CONCLUSION It seems evident that ancient history is not entirely free from bias and that even our most reliable of writers had personal and political beliefs and agendas that influcence their work. As Steven Woodworth, Author Historian states: "All historians have biases (and so does everybody else). How it affects one’s interpretation of the sources depends on what the bias is." -


JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

"History is written by victors" - anonymous (often attributed to Winston Churchill)

"[History] is ... always mediated by the cultural presumptions that individual historians bring to the practise of writing it." - Thomas Holland, Historian

""What is history but a fable agreed-upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte, French general

EXAMPLES

Tacitus: "Any trained historian can readily see that Tacitus' depiction of Nero as an insane despot is not an entirely neutral portrait of the emperor and may have less to do with the absolute truth than Tacitus' political agenda." - - Professor Mark Damen from Utah State University Logan
http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320hist&c ... 01hist.htm

Polybius: "I would admit that authors should show partiality towards their own country, but they should not make statements about it which are contrary to the facts’" - [16.14.6. See Frank Walbank, Commentary on Polybius , Vol 1. (Oxford, 1957) pp. 11-12]

Josephus: "the need to please his patrons provided Josephus with an external bias that imposed limits on what he could and could not include in his work he regularly praised the roles of both Vespasian and Titus" - Eric D huntsman, Brigham Young University. Harold W. Attridge refers to Josephus’s Antiquities as a “propagandistic history.� - The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judicae of Flavius Josephus (Scholars Press: Missoula, Montana, 1976), p. 181.

CONCLUSION It seems evident that ancient history is not entirely free from bias and that even our most reliable of writers had personal and political beliefs and agendas that influcence their work. As Steven Woodworth, Author Historian states: "All historians have biases (and so does everybody else). How it affects one’s interpretation of the sources depends on what the bias is." -

And the conclusion would be that, if even respected historians can let us down and tell untruths, what are we to say about those who never claimed to be writing history - people such as Paul who had their own unashamed agenda? You make a strong case
for disregarding Scripture.

[marco]

Who here as even read, in full, Josephus, and read even a single book by an historian on Josephus?

Who here has read a single primary source for Alexander the Great, and asked of it daunting questions about their reliability, and found satisfying answers to these questions?

I take it these are ruminations on the brevity of life and the colossal amount that has been written. I have a very old copy of Josephus into which I dip when I require information. I have read primary sources and translated them, but my specialisations don't include history. I am human.
Of course we require facts to back up our statements, but we also require intelligence to back up our facts. It is probably best to assume that those with whom we debate history are in possession of a brain, unless there is evidence to the contrary. And from what I see, many people have a commendable grasp of different periods in history and their views are informative. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser. Those of us who are ignorant, Liam, thirst for the knowledge which you seem to possess but are often reluctant to divulge. Best regards.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to liamconnor]

We know that the cult of the crucified carpenter first sprang up in the first century. We also know that people began to believe the stories spread by the followers of the crucified man that he had returned to life. That is historical. The claim itself is religious in nature, however. Religious beliefs very clearly affect the direction that history takes. Notice that the supernatural claims of the various religions ARE NOT THEMSELVES considered historical in nature however. You are declaring that though some special dispensation made possible by your very act of declaring it, your specific supernatural claims are and should necessarily be considered historical in nature. And the only real reply to that is, well, sez you!

[PghPanther]

The way I see this history and the Bible is this way.

The Bible claims a truth......an absolute one from supernatural revelation which claims the fate of your eternal soul.

Well what can history say about absolute truths?

What can history say about the supernatural?

What can history say about the existence of a soul and its life after death?

Maybe before history has something to say about any of the above how about we try to first see if we can validate any of that being seated within reality in the here and now first before praise how smart people were 2,000 years ago about such things..............and I'm still waiting to see that.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
Most of history is backed up by the following:

1. Many independent historical reports reported by clearly unbiased people.

This is a huge claim.

That ain't nothing. I once claimed I was at the bingo hall all night, only to find out that'n that's now an ex done saw me down to the motel. She set a bias on me like y'all ain't ever saw.

(two edits to get the following words down right)
It's hardly fantastical to seek multiple, unbiased reports in order to form an opinion on a notion or more.
(/edit)

A claim presuming knowledge.

It doesn't so much presume knowledge, as it displays a good bunch of it.

What are we to do, expect a few biased historical records, or a bunch of unbiased ones of 'em?

So then,

Many? How many? Which? What report has zero, ZERO bias?

Here's just one:

I ain't allowed out the house no more, cause it is, I see and hear stuff that ain't there.

Notice here there's little reason to conclude I'm biased, when it is, I'm the one can't enjoy gardening, or brewing, or just taking a leak off the deck.

There's nothing magical about my claim, so it can be considered with a high degree of reliability - while maintaining a healthy skepticism on if maybe I ain't snuck me out a time or two.

Who here has even read, in full, Josephus, and read even a single book by an historian on Josephus?

I ain't.

I react to claims folks present, far more'n the writings of the ancients (as this is debate and all).

Who here has read a single primary source for Alexander the Great, and asked of it daunting questions about their reliability, and found satisfying answers to these questios?

I'm just not finding a great bunch that wants to blow up stuff, kill people, restrict the rights of people, or who fret over which bathroom it is folks use, who say they only do such cause it is, ol' Al there told 'em we'd all be in trouble for it.

Who here puts faith in their history books, and does not doubt the claims there made because most of them do not include the miraculous, and do not make any claims on their lives?

The scientifically minded will doubt even their own pet notions - if only so's they can pride themselves on being scientifical about it.

Conclusions?

I see little reason to fret claims that have no basis in reality - 'cept when such claims lead folks to trying to kill and blow up, and all that rights restricting.


If the angle presented here is such as "You believe that book, so it's irrational to NOT believe this'n", I say to such folks, "Don't care, long as you don't harm folks, or society, by acting on Mother Goose's orders!"