mountainman

Dear Meta,

Ancient historians generally like there to be an unambiguous corroboration of various degrees between the literature tradition and the field traditions (as defined below). The problem with the new testament literature and christian literature as a whole is that it does not have any corroboration outside of itself for the first three centuries of the common era. We may for example believe every word that Eusebius, the fourth century researcher of christian history for the period from the year DOT to the Council of Nicaea. The problem is that his testimony bears very little corroboration with the evidence forthcoming from the field traditions of ancient history.

The "Evidential Bearing Fields" of Ancient History

Part (1): The "Literature Traditions"

the speakers - authors (particularly "historians") and their estimable historicity.
the words - ancient texts: their literature, its philology, and its translations.
the documents - physical written source - original texts (codexes, papyrii, papyrii fragments)
the historians - comments and analyses of the above by past and present ancient historians.

Part (2): The "Field Traditions"
architecture, buildings, monuments
inscriptions in stone and metal and mosaic - the epigraphic habit
sarcophagi, burial relics, funerary ornaments
coins (gold, silver and others)
art, paintings and graffitti
sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, ornamental works
archeological relics and other citations

Part (3): The "Analysis Support Traditions & newer technologies"
paleographic assessment of original texts, papyrii and papyrii fragments
radio carbon dating citations
collective and collaborative databases: epigraphic, numismatic, etc.

A thorough examination of citations to evidence in Part (2) with respect to an independent testimony that the christian history is as Eusebius tells us fails with null data. We have paleographic assessment of papyri fragments from Oxyrynchus carrying a great load in Part (3) but IMO there are a number of very severe problems with these paleographic assessments of "early chronology". On the oher hand, the C14 -- the new technology on the block - has two citations which suggest a very later date - 4th century.

The way I see it is that ancient history examines the evidence from Part A and the evidence from Part B and th evidence from Part C in a parallel manner, but at the same time is looking for a relational integrity between all the parts. For example we can be reasonably certain that by the end of the fourth century there were christians on the planet because all the categories of evidence in Part A, B and C corroborate each other are represented. But the situation before the fourth century sees a great silence from Part B which the christians have yet to explain by any other mechanism other than christianity was "an underground green religion" and left no archaeological footprint or rubbish.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jayhawker Soule

There's evidence, there's proof, and then there's spin. The Tanakh is multivocal with many of those voices seeking to explicate the past. While not an "historical record," it is clearly, among other things, an effort at folk history.

IamJoseph

Which part, if any, is folk history? The Tanakh includes the five books of Moses, the prophetic writings, and the psalms. All these books contain names, dates, places and wars over a period of almost 2000 years of history - its verses and chapters evidenced by relics which pop up almost bi-monthly.

To my knowledge, only the FX miracles are not evidenced, while all other historical data are mostly proven. Some 15 years ago, 3000 year figures like David and Solomon were classed as myth - this has been soundly overturned by the Tel Dan discovery. I have not seen a more historical document any place else - can you mention one with more historicity by period of time or volume of proven items?

Jayhawker Soule

So does Les Mis.

Toto

A digression prompted by IamJospeph has been split off here.

IamJoseph

Why isn't the Bible a historical record?

The score is: nil on the table thus far - nothing was put up which can be proven non-historical. Not bad.

fatpie42

This coming from someone who now has a thread named after them entitled:
Tons of the Bible can be proven to be non-historical if you actually open your eyes. Let me just remind you of the examples I told you ages ago:

IamJoseph

Firstly, I am not the instigator of the thread you mention.

Secondly, there is a difference in something being presented as a miracle [the texts!], and something being historical or not. With regard the plagues, the historical bit is that the Hebrews were in Egypt, then they were not, in a certain space-time. To prove this is not historical does not rest on disproving or proving plagues appeared by a magic wand. Same with Joshua and Jericho: the historical part is the Hebrews were in Jericho - is that dis-historical? Which part - that Jericho did not exist or that the Hebrews were never there?

An historical item can only be proved or disproved via historical means. But most often anti-ists stay cear away from history - and zoom only on the unprovable bits - like did the nile really turn red - as opposed did the nile, its first recording here, exist in the Hebrew report! This makes it clear they have a problem confronting historicty in the Hebrew bible - or they do not want to go there!

I repeat my challenge: prove any historical text in the Hebrew bible is not historically based? The question does not allow FX Miracles only - and if anyone can prove or disprove a miracle there would be no reason to discuss history at all. Have a go - get historical instead!

History Q: Which is the first recording of the historical city of Jericho - and what is its historical context there? :wave:

IamJoseph

Good you used the term 'fundy' here. I too doubt any possibility of evidence here.

The only evidence we have of the Noah story being correct and historical is its first reporting of the mount of Ararat, that this region was subject to floods and famines, that the 'names' in the story all being authentic of its space-time, that the vine was a known planting harvest here, that sacrifices of animals are authentic in this time, and that when the text is correctly adhered to - this is very plausability a true, historical report.

The texts opens with the preamble it only applies to 'ALL OF NOAH'S POSSESSIONS' [probably the reason no wild animals are mentioned, and only domestic animals are listed]; and that here, 'all the world' only applies to 'ALL THE THEN KNOWN WORLD'. Now this story is beginning to look very historically authentic. Probably why we have its reporting in their, independent, inter-nation writings also - its datings also being very ancient!

Correct grammatical comprehension requires the most correct route is applied. If Tasmania and New York never existed 5,800 years ago - would a report in Babylon 5000 years ago have to consider those towns also? If not, then why do this with the Noah story? :constern01:

Toto

Why are you trying to reverse the normal burden of proof? If you claim that the story of Noah is historical, should you not produce some real evidence? Especially when the same mythic story is told in other cultures?