RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 9, 2015 at 2:12 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 2:16 am by TheMessiah.)
(June 9, 2015 at 2:10 am)robvalue Wrote: I agree. Most detailed conclusions I have heard are not based on evidence, but on an awful lot of assumptions, mainly about people's motivations at the time. I feel people would rather have some story than no story, even if it's not well supported. Historians are important though for establishing things like document authenticity, and which things were all written by the same person, that sort of thing.
Historians analyse the historical world and tell us what constitutes as evidence; hence why I previously cited you 2 historical references. Nearly everything you know about the ancient world would in the eyes of a non-Historian not be considered ''good evidence''. Historians are not just ''good at establishing documents'' --- they give you the most likely and reasonable answer.
What you have basically done is told a person (historians) in their specialist field, which they have studied for perhaps decades that what they do/the way they do it isn't good enough; this is akin to me trying to lecture a Scientist climate-change.
Here is a historian from /r/AskHistorians, with the flair of 'Roman Archaeology' explaining that a non-Historians grasp on what is considered evidence differs from what Ancient Historians consider evidence.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/c...us_christ/
