Who existed ? When ? Where ?

[Kapyong]

Gday Ben

There are a lot more attestations than that left out, which is why I was asking. (For example, I do not see where Eusebius attests to Polycarp on your chart, but so important is Eusebius to Polycarp's attestation that two of the Greek chapters of his epistle owe their very existence in our critical texts to Eusebius' History of the Church.

Then again, Eusebius attests to everyone before him on that chart; perhaps that is why you gave links to the source file? It is probably too much for one chart if you draw lines for all of the attestations.

Yes, I left some pointers out, particularly if there were earlier ones.

But Eusebius -> Polycarp should be in there, thanks - I'll add it in.

Kapyong

[neilgodfrey]

Way back in 2013 I prepared a chart to help get a grasp on how we know certain ancient persons were historical or not. I wonder if it really helps.

n-f = non-fiction

HistoricityChart.png (188.62 KiB) Viewed 6600 times

[Ben C. Smith]

Way back in 2013 I prepared a chart to help get a grasp on how we know certain ancient persons were historical or not. I wonder if it really helps.

Interesting. What is the archaeological evidence for Socrates? Or are you referring to the later statuary (busts and so forth)? Is there any primary evidence for Socrates, using your current definition? Of course we have The Clouds, supposedly performed during Socrates' lifetime and contributing to his death, but I do not believe we possess the autograph, and it is a comedy full of fictional characters. I think all the other reports by contemporaries either postdate his death or are reports in other authors; and I suspect we possess none of the originals from that time period.

While it seems clear to me that Socrates' historicity is far more secure than, say, Jesus' historicity, I am wondering how he would fare under your strict approach to historical reconstruction.

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Thanks Neil, I might look at doing a chart like this for some of those figures.

Meanwhile, here is an update :



I just had to add Jesus.
Also some colour cues.

Link to new source :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByW3G ... 01hdG9JSDg

Kapyong

[neilgodfrey]

Way back in 2013 I prepared a chart to help get a grasp on how we know certain ancient persons were historical or not. I wonder if it really helps.

Interesting. What is the archaeological evidence for Socrates? Or are you referring to the later statuary (busts and so forth)? Is there any primary evidence for Socrates, using your current definition? Of course we have The Clouds, supposedly performed during Socrates' lifetime and contributing to his death, but I do not believe we possess the autograph, and it is a comedy full of fictional characters. I think all the other reports by contemporaries either postdate his death or are reports in other authors; and I suspect we possess none of the originals from that time period.

While it seems clear to me that Socrates' historicity is far more secure than, say, Jesus' historicity, I am wondering how he would fare under your strict approach to historical reconstruction.

I think my reference to archaeological evidence in that column is a reference to the literature in which the name of the person is found. Apparently we have archaeological evidence for Aristophanes who, of course, wrote about his contemporary, Socrates. (I don't recall off-hand the details of that archaeological evidence.)

Socrates' historicity does indeed have stronger support than that of Jesus. Not that S's historicity is absolutely iron-clad certain. Just strong support. Appears to be very likely.

[Bernard Muller]

I wonder from where the external evidence about Honi the circle drawer comes in the writings of Tacitus, Cassius Dio and Seneca.

Cordially Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

I wonder from where the external evidence about Honi the circle drawer comes in the writings of Tacitus, Cassius Dio and Seneca.

Cordially Bernard

That's obviously an error in the chart, Bernard.

You can see the original chart (without comments) @ http://vridar.org/2013/01/29/the-histor ... s-existed/

The above was copied from http://vridar.org/2013/01/31/that-chart ... lanations/

[neilgodfrey]

oh dear, what would conservative biblical scholars say about this?

Archaeologist Claims that King Arthur Was Not a Real Person But a Fictional “Celtic Superhero”

The argument for King Arthur being entirely mythical, with no historical foundation, appears to be based entirely on parallels of his stories with other myths and literature, and silence.

Tut tut.... no standards at all any more....

[andrewcriddle]

oh dear, what would conservative biblical scholars say about this?

Archaeologist Claims that King Arthur Was Not a Real Person But a Fictional “Celtic Superhero”

The argument for King Arthur being entirely mythical, with no historical foundation, appears to be based entirely on parallels of his stories with other myths and literature, and silence.

Tut tut.... no standards at all any more....

The silence about Arthur is rather striking. (Not mentioned by Gildas, not mentioned by Bede).

Andrew Criddle

[Jax]

I have a spreadsheet of possible ordering of early Christian writings that I would like to post here. What is the best way to do that?

Thanks

Jax