Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 305 (204445)
05-02-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
05-02-2005 8:12 PM


Re: Prove it
Here's my understanding of historical reconstruction, forigve me that it is a bit half-assed.
Independent Attestation: Do we have multiple lines of evidence from independent sources? For Cleopatra, do we have writings from her contemporaries whom she had contact, friend and foe, the Romans, the Greeks, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Jews, Persians etc. Do we have contemporous inscriptions and monuments and artwork that describe her? Any archeological evidence, artifacts such as coins are always helpful. The more of all this the better. The more independent the better. The closer to her alleged time, the better.
Contextual Credibility: Does her existence make sense, logically and historically? Does she fit in the historical mileau? Does what happened that preceded and followed Cleopatra make sense with Cleopatra fitting in-between? Are there any problems with the "story" of Cleopatra? Does her story fit the time she supposedly existed? Does it make sense to have a female pharaoh of Egypt messing around with the Caesars and politicians of Rome? Does she fit into the historical framework we already know?
Dissimilarity: the trickiest criterion. Does any of our evidence have a reason to deny her existence, yet gives it anyway? MangyTiger just came up with a good example. Cleopatra came as the last in the line of Ptolemaic pharaohs, afterwards, Egypt was a province of Rome. Do any Egyptian historians of that time attest to her existence? The criterion of dissimilarity is generally especially enlightening.
Now, add the totality of this information up. What does the evidence tell you? One thing it will never give you is Absolute certainty; it won't give you "proof". It will only give you degrees of certainty. On that note, I would say the existence of Cleopatra is about as certain as the stuff we breathe is made up of parts nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 05-02-2005 8:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 05-02-2005 9:41 PM Clark has replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 305 (204531)
05-03-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
05-02-2005 9:41 PM


Re: Prove it
quote:
Now apply your reasoning to Moses, Abraham, King David and Jesus Christ.
I have.
quote:
For Jesus Christ you have a TON of evidence. All His followers from many nations under the Roman Empire of the time.
As much as I would enjoy discussing the historicity of Jesus, I think we would go far off-topic. There is a lot of evidence to discuss, with varying degrees of value and credibility. Let’s stick with slightly simpler cases.
quote:
You want to deny this is evidence? By Percy's Law then. If somebody believes it, we disqualify that person's testimony.
It is not that we disqualify a believer’s testimony, automatically. It is just that a non-believer, a non-interested party, or enemy, is more credible and their testimony is more enlightening than a believer. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying the information they have is better, or more detailed, or anything, just that it has more weight in building a historical framework.
For example, in the case of Moses, if we have Egyptian testimony to his existence and story, that will be extremely valuable in building a historical framework. Not in detail, but we can reconstruct our story around these strong credible details.
Archeological evidence will go a long way for obvious reasons.
Evidence from the Israelites will be less compelling than the above. Not in the specific, but in building a credible framework. To prove it, so to speak. And believers after the fact are the much less compelling still.
Further about the believer’s testimony. We know people exaggerate, we know people misinterpret, and we know people make stuff up and/or get blinded by their beliefs.
We know that during that time period, the Mediterranean region, the Middle-East, the whole world till about 400 years ago, was rife with mythological story-telling. It was the way of life.
This is all a big reason why independent and dissimilar evidence is so critical.
quote:
Also, take up the question of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan please. Point to writings about them.
Honestly, I’m not too familiar with the details of these guys. My understanding is that my criterion of Contextual Credibility and Dissimilarity come into play big time. Dissimilarity, simply, we know about them from the Europeans and Asians that got their asses kicked. Contextual Credibility, I’m having a little trouble articulating. Basically they fit the context of the hi[story] we’re telling. The course of history was obviously changed by them. What preceded and followed their existence in history makes sense, only when we have these characters in-between. And they fit the times, they are credible characters.
quote:
Point to writings about them.
Watch out that you’re not getting too wrapped up with the idea of writings. There is more to history than words on paper.
One last note, the existence of Homer, traditionally considered the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey is contested among historians. In much the same way Moses is contested for his authorship of the Pentateuch.
Btw, I may have gotten in a little over my head here. I doubt very much I’ll be a consistent poster to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 05-02-2005 9:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 05-03-2005 2:48 AM Clark has replied

Clark
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 305 (204599)
05-03-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Faith
05-03-2005 2:48 AM


Re: Prove it
The method I'm using is for determining historical certainty that reasonable people can agree upon. It is a method that works, despite your emotional objections.
Uh huh, but most myths are pretty easy to identify AS myths. The Bible has NOTHING about it of the nature of myth. The idea is so absurd that it nearly literally makes me sick to hear people say such a thing.
I think reasonable people can credibly identify the Bible as myth. Only those who have faith that the Bible is an accurate historical record disagree.
P.S. I guess the example of historians' also doubting the reality of Homer is supposed to show the objectivity of it all, but even that makes me sick.
You implied that we didn't doubt other historical figures such as Cleopatra. We do doubt them, all of them, only if we can legitimately reconstruct them, do we point to them with certainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 05-03-2005 2:48 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024