What is "a reasohable doubt?" (for Pete and everyone)

[andrewcriddle]

So you can't identify any person universally accepted as genuinely historical on the grounds of stories -- whether from an ancient historical or fictional or mythical or theological or philosophical or dramatic or indeterminate or other genre -- alone?

I'm sure you can if you stop to think for a few moments.

Would Pythagoras qualify ?

His historicity is very widely accepted despite our evidence being based on what I would regard as 'stories'.

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

... you have made up your own standard of history that real historians do not use.

What 'standard of history' do "real historians" use

[Metacrock]

... you have made up your own standard of history that real historians do not use.

What 'standard of history' do "real historians" use

historians accept Festus mentioned in Paul's letter based upon mention in acts and name on a wall. They accept Pilate with only a couple of mentions,


http://metacrock.blogspot.com/

[Ulan]

historians accept Festus mentioned in Paul's letter based upon mention in acts and name on a wall. They accept Pilate with only a couple of mentions,

I guess the acceptance of Festus is rather due to the point that there's nothing lost or won by not accepting him as historical. It doesn't really make any difference with regard to anything. It's not really a big thing whether a single name in Acts is wrong or right. He's also mentioned by Josephus, for what it's worth.

Pilate is a clear case, regarding there's a stone with his name on it in Caesarea Maritima, which is quite good as solid evidence. Solid as a rock, if I might say so.

[spin]

... you have made up your own standard of history that real historians do not use.

What 'standard of history' do "real historians" use

historians accept Festus mentioned in Paul's letter based upon mention in acts and name on a wall. They accept Pilate with only a couple of mentions,

Hmmm, Cartesian history. Donald gets more mentions than Daisy in the Woodchuck Universal History, so Donald's more historical.

[neilgodfrey]

So you can't identify any person universally accepted as genuinely historical on the grounds of stories -- whether from an ancient historical or fictional or mythical or theological or philosophical or dramatic or indeterminate or other genre -- alone?

I'm sure you can if you stop to think for a few moments.

Would Pythagoras qualify ?

His historicity is very widely accepted despite our evidence being based on what I would regard as 'stories'.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, Andrew. Yes, indeed. -- Or at least I think so. I am pretty sure you are correct and that we have "stories alone" as his witnesses.

[Secret Alias]

Homer. You have an oral tradition passing on a story ascribed to this man. No manuscripts or evidence he wrote anything down.

[Ben C. Smith]

Homer. You have an oral tradition passing on a story ascribed to this man. No manuscripts or evidence he wrote anything down.

Come now. Homer is most certainly not "a person universally accepted as genuinely historical." His existence is routinely doubted.

[Secret Alias]

I didn't know which age we were speaking of. Are there doubts about Homer's existence in antiquity or are the stories enough to prove he existed?

[Ben C. Smith]

I didn't know which age we were speaking of. Are there doubts about Homer's existence in antiquity or are the stories enough to prove he existed?

I do not know that his existence was doubted in antiquity. But the kind of figure Neil asked for was "any person universally accepted as genuinely historical."