Ask A Historian

[Minimalist]

Absolutely.  But the example given was Egyptian not English.  While the date of Beowolf is argued over the 8th century seems to gather the majority of the votes.  So going with that we are looking at a document which is 1,300 years old.

If you add 1,300 to 300 for the Rosetta Stone (being charitable and rounding off) you get 1,600 BC which is towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period.  The Middle and Old Kingdoms and the First Intermediate period are out of reach.  Its an amazing span of time.

[Pyrrho]

Yes.  And that is why great care should be taken, and why a gradual approach, at least superficially, seems best.  From understanding Egyptian hieroglyphics from 300 BCE, one should be extremely suspicious of an immediate jump to claiming to understand Egyptian hieroglyphics from 2000 BCE.  I hope (and since you are the historian here, maybe you can tell us what they did) that the people who profess to be experts on this did not try to make that leap in one go, and instead tried to gradually work their way back, unless they had something else to work with than just the Rosetta Stone.

I confess, I do not know the details of what has been done on this, as history is not my subject.  I hope (and, again, please tell us if this is a vain hope) that the historians and archaeologists working on this sort of thing, were responsible on their approach.  (Of course, I do not mean all of them, as that is absurd to suppose that everyone is reasonable, but only that the general approach has been reasonable.)

[Minimalist]

[Pyrrho]

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.

[Minimalist]

[Pyrrho]

You should tell us more about history.  Whatever interests you.

Here is something you will like:



If I have to ask a question to get you to tell us something about history, I will make the above illustration relevant, and ask, how were people selected by the Romans for being exhibited in the Colosseum?

[Minimalist]

[Minimalist]

[Pyrrho]

Okay, fair enough about the time period.  But I am interested in the evolution of it as well, so it is interesting to hear about it as a funeral rite.

As for the lack of much persecution of the Christians, I seem to remember reading about that elsewhere some years ago, but I do not recall what it was I read on that topic.  (Maybe it was an excerpt from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  Did he say something along those lines?)  It was in the days before everyone was online, so it has been a while.

Christians seem to always exaggerate the levels of persecution that they face.

[Minimalist]