Evaluation of Historical Sources

[Difflugia]

There is an apologetic argument that the Gospels and Acts are treated more skeptically than is warranted when compared to other ancient sources, to the extent that we should actually be reasonably confident that supernatural events did, in fact, occur.

Can anyone provide examples of sources that skeptical historians trust, but they don't trust Christian sources in the same way?

Are there any ancient sources that we trust enough to take at face value descriptions of supernatural events?

Are there any ancient sources with similar levels of religious content, but from which we trust their secular content?

Does anyone know of any combination of ancient sources that is historically harmonized in a similar way or to a similar degree that Christians do to the Gospel narratives?

Would anyone like to propose a historical method that we should apply in common to the New Testament and other ancient sources?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP

There is an apologetic argument that the Gospels and Acts are treated more skeptically than is warranted when compared to other ancient sources, to the extent that we should actually be reasonably confident that supernatural events did, in fact, occur.
...

When told I should act and think a certain way based on what the ancients have to allow, I set to their claims...


"Thatn there burned him down a bridge, and folks couldn't cross, so don't you burn you down no bridge."

Okay, I won't do me no bridge burning down, unless it's on my own property, and the pretty thing says I can.


"That'n there hopped him up from the dead, and you need to go about stoning them dang ol homosexuals."

Now I gotta confirm folks can walk on water, why it is I need to stone me the dang ol homosexuals, and who's a dang ol homosexual, to need em a stoning.

That's just too much thinking and hating. I'd just soon go back and burn down that bridge and not tell the pretty thing I did.

[1213]

...Can anyone provide examples of sources that skeptical historians trust, but they don't trust Christian sources in the same way?
...

I don’t know is there such people, but it seems to me that people more easily believe for example ancient Egyptian writings than what the Bible tells. And I think that is interesting. Do you think people believe easily ancient Egyptian writings?

[Difflugia]

I don’t know is there such people, but it seems to me that people more easily believe for example ancient Egyptian writings than what the Bible tells. And I think that is interesting. Do you think people believe easily ancient Egyptian writings?

Are you referring to the chronologies of the Dynastic Period of Egypt and its Pharaohs as compared to creationist interpretations of history?

In any event, I think the following quote from the "List of Pharaohs" Wikipedia page sums up the modern view of ancient sources:

Concerning ancient sources, Egyptologists and historians alike call for caution in regard to the credibility, exactitude and completeness of these sources, many of which were written long after the reigns they report.

[1213]

Are you referring to the chronologies of the Dynastic Period...

Concerning ancient sources, Egyptologists and historians alike call for caution in regard to the credibility, exactitude and completeness of these sources, many of which were written long after the reigns they report.

I was referring to any over 2000-year-old Egyptian writing. It is interesting how people think they know something was written long after what they are reporting. I am not convinced that people really know that correctly.