Okay, whenever people are trying to prove something about their religion in archaeology, it is almost certainly horse shit. Religionists do not apply proper standards to things pertaining to their religion, and so they cannot be trusted on such matters.
I seem to recall reading about some discovery of something like a house possibly owned by a fisherman named "Peter," and the idiots immediately assumed it must be the Peter of the Bible, without anything else to back up that idea, beyond the fact that it is in the right general area and possibly old enough. As if only one man named "Peter" could be a fisherman.
(It could have been someone else; I am going from memory on this. Which means it is still as reliable as the drivel put forth by religionists when they are pretending to do archaeology pertaining to their religion. Or, if you prefer, it gives it an unreliability to make it more comparable with the pronouncements of religious archaeologists regarding artifacts purportedly relevant to their own religion. But even so, I don't have the same firmness to my unreliable opinion, so there is still a significant difference.)
As far as archaeology and history goes, I only know enough to tentatively accept whatever the general consensus is among experts, excluding, of course, everything pertaining to their respective religions. Thus, I am unconvinced of the historicity of Jesus (I have read some G.A. Wells), as nothing anyone has put forth is convincing to me. And since most of the "experts" on the question are religious believers, their opinions on such matters carry no weight. When someone goes into an investigation, already believing a particular point of view, it means nothing if they still have that point of view after the investigation. Frankly, when I first looked into the question of the historicity of Jesus, I thought that there would be much more, and much better, evidence for the idea than there is. It is shocking how little there is, given the certainty than many feel on the question.
That means, of course, disregarding lone voices on historical and archaeological matters, as it would require an investigation to know if they are right or not. Normally, I don't bother, as it is not important enough for me to try to figure out minutiae of things so far removed from my life.
I hope that does not come off the wrong way, as I am glad that there are people who do devote themselves to such matters. It is good to have experts, as one cannot know everything oneself.
Things are a bit different when looking at Egyptian hieroglyphics (as opposed to things pertaining to Christianity and Judaism), as most archaeologists are not believers in ancient Egyptian religion. So there are not the same sorts of biasses at work. Still, there are crackpots who are going to make ridiculous claims, and that is where the general consensus among the experts comes into play.
I seem to recall reading about some discovery of something like a house possibly owned by a fisherman named "Peter," and the idiots immediately assumed it must be the Peter of the Bible, without anything else to back up that idea, beyond the fact that it is in the right general area and possibly old enough. As if only one man named "Peter" could be a fisherman.
(It could have been someone else; I am going from memory on this. Which means it is still as reliable as the drivel put forth by religionists when they are pretending to do archaeology pertaining to their religion. Or, if you prefer, it gives it an unreliability to make it more comparable with the pronouncements of religious archaeologists regarding artifacts purportedly relevant to their own religion. But even so, I don't have the same firmness to my unreliable opinion, so there is still a significant difference.)
As far as archaeology and history goes, I only know enough to tentatively accept whatever the general consensus is among experts, excluding, of course, everything pertaining to their respective religions. Thus, I am unconvinced of the historicity of Jesus (I have read some G.A. Wells), as nothing anyone has put forth is convincing to me. And since most of the "experts" on the question are religious believers, their opinions on such matters carry no weight. When someone goes into an investigation, already believing a particular point of view, it means nothing if they still have that point of view after the investigation. Frankly, when I first looked into the question of the historicity of Jesus, I thought that there would be much more, and much better, evidence for the idea than there is. It is shocking how little there is, given the certainty than many feel on the question.
That means, of course, disregarding lone voices on historical and archaeological matters, as it would require an investigation to know if they are right or not. Normally, I don't bother, as it is not important enough for me to try to figure out minutiae of things so far removed from my life.
I hope that does not come off the wrong way, as I am glad that there are people who do devote themselves to such matters. It is good to have experts, as one cannot know everything oneself.
Things are a bit different when looking at Egyptian hieroglyphics (as opposed to things pertaining to Christianity and Judaism), as most archaeologists are not believers in ancient Egyptian religion. So there are not the same sorts of biasses at work. Still, there are crackpots who are going to make ridiculous claims, and that is where the general consensus among the experts comes into play.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
