Steven Carr

The original piece of paper is usually a reliable guide to what was on the original piece of paper.

Of course, Haran is right. It may have been tampered with later.

But even the 'early' Biblical manuscripts had 'correctors', who rewrote what was written.

Ion

For example the Roman poet Ovidiu (probably spelled in English as Ovide) exiled in the territory of Dacia -present day Romania- after the Romans invaded it, wrote texts about the emperor Traian conquering Dacia.

So, is the conquest of Dacia by Traian -that Ovidiu described in his texts- historical or mythical?

It's historical.

When you go to Rome, Italy, you can find the monument called Column of Traian, dated 100 A.D., built at about the time of the alleged conquest of Dacia by Traian, and the monument has frescoes showing Traian's army battling Decebal's army.

Now, this conquest is peanuts compared to the example mentioned earlier in this thread of the Biblical Mathew, writing in the Bible that at the time of Jesus' resurrection there was an earthquake, rocks split, holy people raised from tombs and walked into the city, while Pilate -strangely- didn't take any measure.

And this miracle happened a few years earlier than the benign conquest of Dacia by Traian.

But the benign conquest of Dacia by Traian has a contemporary monument to attest it archaeologically, and a few years earlier an earthquake, the miraculous dead raising and the resurrection of Jesus went unnoticed -outisde of the Biblical cult- locally and worldwide.

Jesus went unnoticed archaeologically, because the Biblical Jesus is a religious myth.

Haran

Ion, I'm not sure you meant Ovid, since he died before Trajan. You may have been referring to Cassius Dio.

Seems that it's not so cut and dried.

It seems that most people believe that Jesus was most definitely a historical figure. The dispute is more to what degree the stories might have been exaggerated.

Ion

Ovid died after the conquest of Dacia by Trajan.

Before Trajan died, but after Trajan's conquest.

But Cassius Dio's writings apply similarly to the conquest of Dacia:

is the conquest of Dacia -which Dio describes- a myth, or is history?

What is not "...so cut and dried..." according to your own link, is not the general conquest of Dacia by Trajan, is the datails of the chronology of geographical spots in Dacia during Trajan's expedition of conquest.

The general conquest -according to your own link, but to many other commentaries as well- is testified by the Column of Trajan.

Regarding Jesus being a historical figure, no he's not.

I read this in The San Diego Tribune of Saturday November 2 2002:

"...If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it is the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus..."

and I read in The San Diego Union Tribune of Thursday June 19, 2003:

'Jesus-era burial box inscription called fake'.

So, the miraculous Biblical Jesus is ironically invisible in history -the first archaeological artifact related to Jesus is proved to be a fake-, while the benign conquest of Dacia by Trajan is attested archaeologically by the Column of Trajan -albeit the chronology of the locations during the conquest, is not clear-.