Roger Pearse

Or indeed: "Does it quite make sense to complain that texts written in 90 AD do not conform in style and content to those written at the University of California in 1993?"

One fears that some such presumption -- that the standards of the USA of the late 20th century are some kind of eternal absolute -- underlies so much of what is written along these lines. The Victorians used to do this, on the reasonable basis that their day knew the highest civilisation that mankind had ever known. In our days, which some feel show intellectual and social and cultural decline -- indeed every form of decline other than technological -- is it still evident that this is so?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

ynquirer

People that can differentiate reality from imagination would not find it difficult to appreciate the information contained in the latter paragraph while discounting the story in the former.

aa5874

Is it your understanding that every plausible event, written by Flavius Josephus, signifies an actual occurence? Or is it that all plasible accounts of any event are true?

neilgodfrey

This event reminded me of the stories of the Angels of Mons that were said to have appeared in the sky between the German and British forces in 1914. This story was repeated in newspapers, documentary films and even in some history books as footnotes decades later, even if sometimes couched in sceptical but curious tones. No worries. It just means we don't have to believe everything we read about the Jewish War or even World War I.

But the problem with ancient historians tossing in reports of these sorts of prodigies is not that they are obviously just rumours gone mad and widely believed true but that modern readers can be tempted to sift "fact" from "fiction" in a history on the basis of comparing the obviously fanciful with the more realistic stories. In other words, by rightly rejecting the unnatural omens a modern reader can sometimes be a bit over smug with a naive reading of the "natural" stories. (This is about as "critical" as many biblical scholars ever seem to get.)

Every historian has "an agenda", even those who think they are doing nothing more than objectively recording the bare facts. Everyone approaches a problem or historical event from some perspective or view, with their own values, and with their own intentions and questions that arise from those views and values. So the cultural values that Josephus imbibed led him to indicate belief in an Angels at Mons story, or at least to let his "narrative persona" suggest that belief to his audience, while our cultural values lead many but not all of us to be more sceptical.

That's not a criticism, but simply a recognition of how the human brain is made to work. The problem is when the historians and readers fail to understand and acknowledge these agendas.

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

ynquirer

Good point, neilgodfrey. Thank you for a link to scaring war stories. A fine contribution, in my opinion.

ynquirer

You shift the argument. It began a question on the reliability of historians that include implausible accounts, ends a doubt about the reliability of plausible accounts. What is your point?

spin

I guess we'll have to stop reading Tacitus and Suetonius then.


spin

Doug Shaver

Not only that . . . if I pick up a book by a modern historian, how am I supposed to find out whether he or she believes in the supernatural?

Not too long ago, I read David McCullough's biography of John Adams. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and in my layman's judgment it seemed like McCullough had done an excellent job. But, I just don't have the foggiest notion whether he believes in God, or angels, or whatever. So, I guess until I find out, I'll have no way knowing whether I should believe anything in that book.

spin

That sounds more like sin by omission rather than sin by commission.


spin

aa5874

I am dealing with credibilty. If a so-called historian writes about events that are appear to be blatantly false, that is , these events could not have occured, must I accept those events, that appear to be plausible, as having occured, just because of the plausibilties?

I have read books of history where the author of one book refutes certain information of another author, however both information surrounding the events under question appear to be plausible.

Let me simplify my point, a person, A, makes a report to the police that someone, B, stole their wallet. This person, B, came from out of the clouds and snatched their wallet and immediately after taking the wallet returned back to the clouds. B was about 6 ft tall, appear to be about 20-30 years old, was wearing a black shirt and blue jeans and appears to be a white male. Person A also has witnesses that claim they saw the entire episode.

Now, person A is a fundamentalist and a historian and so are his witnesses.