The Dagda

Could be.

Doug Shaver

And therefore what?

Are you suggesting that if a question is hard to answer, we don't need as much evidence as we do if the question is easy to answer?

Or do you mean that whatever the question, all we need to justify an answer is whatever evidence is easy to come by?

aa5874

Or he could be based on multiple real and/or mythical characters.

The Dagda

No and No.

thedistillers

But... As a person already hinted, why should the alternative be that every literary text is suspect? Why not starting with the idea that a lot of texts are of unknown accuracy?

Doing so doesn't make the data go away, so I'm not sure to see how it makes things worse.

2-J

Of course. And note how Roger's only reply to what was posted was 'you haven't read what I said'. Lol! Sheshonq's post seemed pretty spot-on to me. Maybe Roger could elaborate on just how Sheshonq missed his point

DCHindley

I had hoped my earlier outline post that noted there exists both a "positive" and a "negative" criticism of sources would get a comment, but alas, no.

If one checks the Internet for sites dedicated to the study of history (go ahead, ignore all religious oriented sites), one will find that most advocate applying BOTH types of criticism to a source, usually provisional acceptance of the text as "prima facie" true or accurate, noting any inconsistencies with other sources and what we know of the way the world works, and then go at negative criticism to see if we can detect any patterns to the inconsistencies or oddities of expression that might betray personal bias ("my child is perfect and could do no wrong") or the deliberate promotion of an agenda (as in Joseph Stalin's deliberate downplaying of Leon Trotsky's contribution to the success of Soviet communism).

DCH

Roger Pearse

You haven't read it either, it seems, for I deal with all this in the post in question. I don't have a lot of time for the sort of damn fool who just ignores everything, quotes a couple of words, and reiterates some hearsay; do you?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

2-J

But he did deal with what you posted.

Reply was

With the note that it would be perfectly acceptable if many texts from antuiqity were placed in the 'of unknown accuracy' category.

Referring to past historians who by your own admission did not treat all sources equally will not help your position.

If you can't see how Sheshonq addresses the main point you were making, then the 'damn fool' here is not Sheshonq or myself.

Sheshonq

Oh please. Who do you think you're fooling?

1. I ignored nothing, and read everything you wrote;
2. I quoted extensively;
3. I used no hearsay at all - I used solid principles of historical evaluation.

You haven't patched the holes in your leaky argument yet, so you're understandably cautious about trotting it out again. A wise decision - you're remembering the shellacking you got the last three times you tried to argue this with me and failed, Roger.