Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 07-31-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

When looking at history, we look for independant, internally consistant sources. Eyewitness accounts if possible.

With ancient history we have to be grateful for whatever has survived the passage of time. From there, we need to try to determine the personal bias of the writer.

Chris Weimer · 07-31-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

When looking at history, we look for independant, internally consistant sources. Eyewitness accounts if possible.

With ancient history we have to be grateful for whatever has survived the passage of time. From there, we need to try to determine the personal bias of the writer.

Personal bias is only one factor. We need to instead try to determine what the writer was conveying and how was he conveying it. Bias is inherently included.

Minimalist · 07-31-2007, 08:18 PM

Hmmm.....

In his book "In Search of Ancient Israel Phillip R. Davies notes, as follows, some of the realities of ancient literature:

Quote:

Even in modern societies with 90% literacy, fewer than 1% write books. At issue is not simply the ability to write, but the capacity, motivation and opportunity to write scrolls and to write literature, not to write business transactions, or letters, or lists of names even, or to scratch abecedaries. The production of scrolls containing histories, cultic poems, wise sayings and oracles is not an individual hobby. Such work requires a professional class with time, resources and motivation to write. In some cases, it implies access to official archives.

So, perhaps 'personal bias' is less important than the bias of the 'paymaster'? However, "bias" remains the correct word even though it may be applied to an entire socio-economic class rather than an individual scribe.

Chris Weimer · 07-31-2007, 08:36 PM

Personal bias is also less important than the bias of the source, well, if we have the source to compare it with.

aa5874 · 07-31-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

going back to the OP (if i understand it correctly, which I'm unsure if I do)

When looking at history, we look for independant, internally consistant sources. Eyewitness accounts if possible.

e.g. one of the big christian come backs when people say Jesus (as in the bible) never existed, is 'how do you know julius ceaser ever existed'

Evidence for Jesus - only one source (the bible) most of it not eyewitness accounts, written a long time after the event. Along with a whole host of other, clearly innaccurate stories (the flood, creation etc) alongside it.
We have no records outside the bible for any of Jesus' activities

Compare to Julius Ceaser - many independant eyewitness accounts (e.g. from his enemies as well as friends) written at the time, rather than years after the fact. We also have many written official records of his existence as well as contemperaneous coins with his face and name on it, and busts etc etc.

The question can then be asked, "Why does the christian and the christian apologist accept that Apollo is a mythical figure, even though historians and writers of antiquity did mention that he was worshipped as a god, temples and places of worship were built in his name and some believed that he was the father of Augustus?"

NZSkep · 08-01-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

To NZSkep - how do you know what's independent? Is Josephus dependent on Christians for his remarks? Tacitus?

I would more likely disregard those because they are not contempory sources. i.e. they are both written years after Jesus supposedly died and so are simply reporting on what others told them. (and in fact, the authers were not even born until after his death IIRC)

Tacitus is merely reporting that there are a group of people who worship a guy called christus. This tells us nothing about Jesus' existance, merely about the existance of people who worship someone called christ.

NZSkep · 08-01-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

going back to the OP (if i understand it correctly, which I'm unsure if I do)

When looking at history, we look for independant, internally consistant sources. Eyewitness accounts if possible.

e.g. one of the big christian come backs when people say Jesus (as in the bible) never existed, is 'how do you know julius ceaser ever existed'

Evidence for Jesus - only one source (the bible) most of it not eyewitness accounts, written a long time after the event. Along with a whole host of other, clearly innaccurate stories (the flood, creation etc) alongside it.
We have no records outside the bible for any of Jesus' activities

Compare to Julius Ceaser - many independant eyewitness accounts (e.g. from his enemies as well as friends) written at the time, rather than years after the fact. We also have many written official records of his existence as well as contemperaneous coins with his face and name on it, and busts etc etc.

I want to answer but...
is this an attempt to answer the reliability question or the factual question? Or both?

The OP. 'what makes a historic fact'

Obviusly nothing can be know for certain, but the more, better, evidence we can find for something, the more likely it is to be the truth.

Chris Weimer · 08-01-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

I would more likely disregard those because they are not contempory sources. i.e. they are both written years after Jesus supposedly died and so are simply reporting on what others told them. (and in fact, the authers were not even born until after his death IIRC)

Tacitus is merely reporting that there are a group of people who worship a guy called christus. This tells us nothing about Jesus' existance, merely about the existance of people who worship someone called christ.

You've confused Tacitus and Pliny. Pliny mentions that Christians worship Christus as if he were a God. Tacitus reports that Christians get their name from Christus who "suffered the ultimate penalty" by Pilate.

And can you demonstrate why second hand accounts are not valid? Have you done a survey of second hand accounts for other topics in history? Do we only believe what Livy says when he talks about events in his own lifetime? Do we distrust everything that Tacitus says before his birth? Why are only eyewitnesses credible? And how do you know they are actually eyewitnesses? Can you veritably demonstrate that eyewitnesses are in fact eyewitnesses?

~M~ · 08-01-2007, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~M~

I want to answer but...
is this an attempt to answer the reliability question or the factual question? Or both?

The OP. 'what makes a historic fact'

Obviusly nothing can be know for certain, but the more, better, evidence we can find for something, the more likely it is to be the truth.

i see, i see. Well, it seems to me that the evidence you compare it to is legitmized, at least in part, by being historical fact within itself and thus quite the fallacious response.

NZSkep · 08-01-2007, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

I would more likely disregard those because they are not contempory sources. i.e. they are both written years after Jesus supposedly died and so are simply reporting on what others told them. (and in fact, the authers were not even born until after his death IIRC)

Tacitus is merely reporting that there are a group of people who worship a guy called christus. This tells us nothing about Jesus' existance, merely about the existance of people who worship someone called christ.

You've confused Tacitus and Pliny. Pliny mentions that Christians worship Christus as if he were a God. Tacitus reports that Christians get their name from Christus who "suffered the ultimate penalty" by Pilate.

And can you demonstrate why second hand accounts are not valid? Have you done a survey of second hand accounts for other topics in history? Do we only believe what Livy says when he talks about events in his own lifetime? Do we distrust everything that Tacitus says before his birth? Why are only eyewitnesses credible? And how do you know they are actually eyewitnesses? Can you veritably demonstrate that eyewitnesses are in fact eyewitnesses?

it's not thatsecond hand accounts are always not valid, just that they are less reliable. For the same reason we don't accept hearsay in court, we don;t automatically accept second hand accounts, especially when there is nothing else to back it up (and especially x 2 when other sources contradict it)

ETA: yeah you are right about tacitus/pliny, but the point remains that they were merely reporting about a group of christians, nothing about whether christ existed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2007, 08:36 PM	#34
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Personal bias is also less important than the bias of the source, well, if we have the source to compare it with.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.