New CBB

I second the recommendation.



Despite the fact that this source isn't neutral, I think they show a more fact-based and scientific reasoning than the article they're trying to refute.

This source is even less neutral, but some of its sources are reliable even to skeptics.

Same applies to this.

(It also points out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)

I can't tell how neutral this source (also found here) is. But it says something I agree with (and maybe you don't):

I don't believe that "Biblical Minimalism" is actually an appropriate application of Occam's Razor.

This source presents the opposite point of view. Little in that article can be disproven, IMO.

Like most questions in history, there will never be any definitive proof. If history books consisted only of things that no-one could reasonably deny, or for which there was incontrovertible proof, they would all be extremely slim; and anyone who has developed their upper-body strength by lifting history textbooks knows they are not slim.

The Wikipedia article seems even-handed enough.

I agree with what Byers says Finkelstein said, about parts of the "history" books:


First of all I think anywhere a conversation with God is recorded, there's a solid chance it didn't really happen exactly that way (for one thing, I'm an atheist), though possibly at least one participant may have thought it did.
Second, the actual words of any conversation of which no witness or participant survived to report it, has to be regarded as "fictionalized"; and "fictionalization" must be regarded a distinct possibility, if only one witness or participant survived to report it. The historical part of the tale would be that "those people did have some sort or other of conversation, with the following results".

Nevertheless I think most of the stories were originally written by people who were either alive at the time they (presumably) took place, or were able to interview people who were alive at that time. I don't think there's enough (maybe not any) reason to believe they were all fiction; the most that can be said is there's not enough reason to be certain they probably fiction. They may indeed have been dusted off and re-published for propaganda purposes; propaganda doesn't have to be false, either.

I took courses on religion, on history, on the Bible, and so on, in college. Most published scholars at that time thought that even (most of) Genesis was at least legendary if not historical. (Of course none of them believed all of Genesis was historical, or even legendary; some of it, especially the first several chapters, is "obviously" pure myth (in their opinion).) Job, Jonah, and Esther, and other "trito-canonical" books, were fiction (so they thought); they were preserved in the Hebrew Bible for the same reason English libraries usually include the works of Shakespeare and Jane Austen. (Some deutero-canonical books were also considered in that light.)

So the main reason I think II Samuel, I and II Kings, and I and II Chronicles, are "history", is that the majority of scholars who ought to know all the evidence and arguments for and against it, regard "yes, it's probably mostly history" as the most reasonable working-hypothesis. I know that's not evidence; I'm not well-enough-versed in it all to make a judgement based on the evidence; I have to rely on those who are.

I doubt I've convinced you; I wasn't even trying to, because I never thought it possible. But I think I may have shown you that it's probably more trouble than it would be worth to try to convince me , and that my "working hypothesis" isn't just a symptom of disordered reason.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

I nominate Ashoka. I also nominate Gudit.

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Before his conversion to Buddhism, certainly.



Another one new to me! Yes, I agree she belongs on the list. Thanks for bringing her to my attention!

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Yes, absolutely!

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

Just remembered - thoughts on Tamerlame? I always thought of him as the eviler version of Genghis Khan.


Side note on the David/Solomon thing: I just figured I'd say I sort of agree with Eldin on this one. David and Solomon may not have existed, they may have, but I don't think the entire history was just BSed by a couple of random dudes. Personally, I do think it is a lot of political and cultural propaganda, but as Eldin suggests, that doesn't mean it's 100% BS either. I don't think the issue is that historians should or shouldn't be using the Bible - it's whether they are relying on it too much as opposed to other sources.

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce

I think maybe it's just that Tamerlane had the scarier advanced PR. The things Genghis actually did, but didn't advertise ahead of time, might have been worse FAIK.



Thanks! It's more concise and IMO clearer the way you just said it.

One thing, though:

As I understand it, the controversy is not over whether those two people existed; it's instead over whether their "empire", their "united kingdom", existed. Apparently some people think David, in particular, was more of a bandit chief than a king, and never made Jerusalem his capital/capitol. Some others (and some of the same) think Solomon's kingdom was nowhere near as magnificent as is portrayed in the Bible. And unless I misunderstand them, some think Judah and Israel were never united into one kingdom in O.T. times. But (again unless I misunderstand) most of them -- or, at least, DanH34 -- don't deny, nor really doubt, that the men themselves existed; it's only their empire whose historicity these people question.

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Personally I like to view Genghis as more machiavellan and practical in conquest, while Tamerlame was a bit more bloodthirsty and... well, bloody (relatively speaking). But maybe I'm just more sympathetic to the former.




True, true, that makes sense. Personally I don't believe the kingdoms were anywhere near regional powers, but I can see why people would argue otherwise. Certainly it's difficult the further and further back you go into history, not to mention that, personally, I think for too long have (Western) historians been relying on solely the Bible as a source for that period of time.

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce

Genghis Khan or Nebukhanazzar

_________________
| | | | | | | |

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ

Tamerlane mostly just re-conquered Genghis's empire (at least at first), on the excuse that the people he was conquering had strayed from the correct Mongolic class path. (This is typical; later Islamic conquerors tended to re-conquer Islamic states, for instance.) Tamerlane, and all post-Genghis's-successors Mongol conquerors, always kept a descendant of Genghis with them, like Japanese shoguns keeping the Emperor with them.

However, Tamerlane did conquer enough of Valerian's eastern Roman empire to keep Valerian in an iron cage. (Tamerlane had originally been generous in victory, but Valerian turned out to be a lightning-rod for trouble.) (No, that was Shapur; wrong time-period.)
Tamurlane's wars were often against fellow Mongols and/or fellow Muslims.
He did expand the Mongol empire, by adding parts of the Turkish and Muslim empires to it.


Also, Tamerlane established the Pax Mongolica; I'm not sure he just re-established it, I think it had never previously covered the entire Mongol empire.


I think Tamerlane is "one of the Great Conquerors of History", and so are Genghis and Alexander; but I'm not sure how to compare them.

---

(1) Wouldn't that be "Nebuchadnezzar"?
(2) Tell us what, who, and where he conquered, when, and how?
(3) Do you mean I, II, III, or IV?

_________________
I am not responsible for the accuracy of my sources; they're responsible for their own mistakes, if any, and also responsible for defending their own statements if you disagree with them.

Yeah, Tamerlane just plagiarizing Genghis. I'd say he was just a poser. Everybody who followed Genghis and tried do stuff in his image was just a poser. Tamerlane, poser. Babur, poser. Manchus, posers. Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, poser. Akbar, poser. Actually I think Akbar was pretty cool. Religious tolerance and all that stuff, which Genghis followed. Except in Genghis' case I think it was just 99% practicality, while Akbar sort of was pretty into it, going as far as attempting to found some proto-New Age fusional religion thing.

In all seriousness, anyhow, true, it is difficult to compare all of them, since they were from different periods and thus different historical contexts. Alexander was the culmination of Greek resentment towards the Persians, yet all he really did was simply replace one Persian dynasty with another, in a sense (the Persian Empire was kept mostly intact, and he even got Persianized to a degree anyways); Genghis was essentially the ultimate boss-level extreme-difficulty-level monster spawning from Central Asia after the Chinese had been playing lesser groups against each other; and Tamerlane was just attempting to recreate Genghis' glory with an Islamic flavor. Or something. That said, in terms of personality, I'd probably prefer Genghis the most. My chances of survival would probably be the best - Alexander's kind of out of it, Tamerlane wasn't too nice either, but Genghis will spare you if you either 1) don't piss him off, 2) have some skill in something, or 3) fought bravely and valiantly as his enemy, and he doesn't really give a crap about your beliefs as long as you don't get in his way.

_________________
I now have a blog. Witness the horror.

I think I think, therefore I think I am.
- Ambrose Bierce