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.