Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 12-08-2006, 05:19 PM

I am reading 'Wars of the Jews' by Flavius Josephus and the more I read, the more I wonder about the credibilty of his writings. It is becoming more apparent that those who believe in supernatural beings sometimes have great difficulty in determining what is real and what is imagined.

It is not very difficult to catergorise extra-ordinary events as fiction or mythical, but if a person who believes in the supernatural conjures events that appear plausible and relays these plausible events to an 'historian' who is of the same supernatural belief, is it not likely that these events will appear credible although they never occured?

If we look at 'Wars of the Jews' by F Josephus, book 6 ch 5 section 3,

Quote:

Besides these, a few days after the feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month of Artemisius, [Jyar] a certain prodigous and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the event followed it so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals, for before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen riding about the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

Now, how is it possible that Josephus has a date for this event which is virtually impossible to have occured, doesn't this passage eliminate the credibilty of Josephus? This passage, in my opinion, shows that Josephus cannot differentiate reality from imagination?

Can those who believe in the supernatural, be historians of calibre.

Kosh · 12-08-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am reading 'Wars of the Jews' by Flavius Josephus and the more I read, the more I wonder about the credibilty of his writings. It is becoming more apparent that those who believe in supernatural beings sometimes have great difficulty in determining what is real and what is imagined.

It is not very difficult to catergorise extra-ordinary events as fiction or mythical, but if a person who believes in the supernatural conjures events that appear plausible and relays these plausible events to an 'historian' who is of the same supernatural belief, is it not likely that these events will appear credible although they never occured?

If we look at 'Wars of the Jews' by F Josephus, book 6 ch 5 section 3,

Now, how is it possible that Josephus has a date for this event which is virtually impossible to have occured, doesn't this passage eliminate the credibilty of Josephus? This passage, in my opinion, shows that Josephus cannot differentiate reality from imagination?

Can those who believe in the supernatural, be historians of calibre.

Could he have been paying lip service to someone with clout, while still indicating that it is a "fable"?

WishboneDawn · 12-08-2006, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can those who believe in the supernatural, be historians of calibre.

How about, Can modern standards and ideas of history be held to writings that are 2000 years old?

Aerik · 12-08-2006, 05:52 PM

I think being a theist is a major handicap for historians. To be a theist means to take this problem, this hypothesis of a god which as no credible evidence, and assuming it is true. It's always attached to a religion which makes all sorts of insane stipulations about said god, all of which are unfounded and are proven by any rational analysis of the natural world to be flat out wrong.

A theist's worldview is top-down and starts with a perjury. Major problem.

Vorkosigan · 12-08-2006, 06:49 PM

Of course, a theist can be a historian. What's the problem? Ancients of all kinds believe in credulous tall tales -- it's a human failing -- just ask the atheists today who think UFOs are alien ships or believe in ESP or qi gong. Being credulous is not limited to theistic minds.

Being a theist might give a historian an agenda but then so does being a not-theist.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 12-08-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Of course, a theist can be a historian. What's the problem? Ancients of all kinds believe in credulous tall tales -- it's a human failing -- just ask the atheists today who think UFOs are alien ships or believe in ESP or qi gong. Being credulous is not limited to theistic minds.

Being a theist might give a historian an agenda but then so does being a not-theist.

Vorkosigan

*clap* *clap* *clap*

:notworthy:

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

mountainman · 12-08-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Of course, a theist can be a historian. What's the problem? Ancients of all kinds believe in credulous tall tales -- it's a human failing -- just ask the atheists today who think UFOs are alien ships or believe in ESP or qi gong. Being credulous is not limited to theistic minds.

Being a theist might give a historian an agenda but then so does being a not-theist.

Vorkosigan

There appears to be room in the above analysis for an historian
without an agenda, which is cool, but how is this to be reported?
ie: How does one identify lack of agenda?

Best wishes,

Pete

ynquirer · 12-09-2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, how is it possible that Josephus has a date for this event which is virtually impossible to have occured, doesn't this passage eliminate the credibilty of Josephus? This passage, in my opinion, shows that Josephus cannot differentiate reality from imagination?

This paragraph shows that you cannot differentiate reality from imagination, either.

Doug Shaver · 12-09-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can those who believe in the supernatural, be historians of calibre.

Yes, they can. It's just as easy -- or as difficult -- for them as for people who do not believe in the supernatural.

aa5874 · 12-09-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

This paragraph shows that you cannot differentiate reality from imagination, either.

Are these the words of an historian or a theologian? Can F Josephus differentiate reality from imagination?

'Antiquities of the Jews' book 1 ch1:1

Quote:

In the begining God created the heaven and earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass and seperated the light from the darkness....

Book1 ch1:2

Quote:

Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in Hebrew signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.

Is this really history or is that I cannot differentiate reality from imagination?

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

12-08-2006, 05:52 PM	#4
Aerik Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Shawnee Mission, KS Posts: 171	I think being a theist is a major handicap for historians. To be a theist means to take this problem, this hypothesis of a god which as no credible evidence, and assuming it is true. It's always attached to a religion which makes all sorts of insane stipulations about said god, all of which are unfounded and are proven by any rational analysis of the natural world to be flat out wrong. A theist's worldview is top-down and starts with a perjury. Major problem.

12-08-2006, 06:49 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Of course, a theist can be a historian. What's the problem? Ancients of all kinds believe in credulous tall tales -- it's a human failing -- just ask the atheists today who think UFOs are alien ships or believe in ESP or qi gong. Being credulous is not limited to theistic minds. Being a theist might give a historian an agenda but then so does being a not-theist. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.