Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

If evidence is sujective, quantifiable, falsifiable

You have to be careful, here. I don't think you are using the word "evidence" correctly. For current purposes, "evidence" can be either written or an artifact. It is what it is. What gets subjective, etc., etc., is the interpretation of that evidence.

A simple example: a coin bearing the image of Alexander The Great is found in Libya or Tunisia by an archaeologist. We know that Alexander's empire did not extend west of Egypt. The discoverer writes that the coin is evidence of trade in the Alexandrian/post-Alexandrian period between the Greek-based entities in the East with the locals in Libya/Tunisia.

Another writer comes along and says that the coin is evidence of Greek military/political expansion into Libya/Tunisia. Such an interpretation is absurd but the original artifact remains the same.

With textual sources the problem becomes doubled. Every author has a point of view. The writings themselves ARE subjective. It was even worse in antiquity when literacy was generally restricted to the upper classes only. So you not only have to sort out the actual meaning of the words within the context and language of the time they were written you also have to ascertain what point-of-view the author was trying to promote. People lie. People exaggerate. People are simply mistaken. But that does not stop them from writing things down. However, the original document still exists and still can be read by scholars and they can dispute the meaning.

I know we do not agree on much, Minimalist, but I do agree with you here.