Posted: Oct 01, 2015 11:16 am
igorfrankensteen wrote:Agrippa: [sic]
As our resident historian, you should take careful note of all documentary evidence, not least that which appears appended to each of Agrippina's posts (not least because of who the original Agrippina was). Your mouth is issuing condescending cheques your brain simply can't cash here.
I appreciate what your post tried to do, but you said some things which are on the wrong side of things, I think.
Let's see how far off the mark you manage to land here:
Which then leads to an examination of what evidence there is. As there is no evidence for the existence of people wandering around the desert for 40 years, it may be assumed that it didn't happen. This is where assumption and deduction come in.
Error. Assuming something didn't happen because you've found no support for it yet, isn't scientific, and doesn't demonstrate good Historical research practice either. The correct way to handle such things, is to say simply that there is no evidence to support such and such a Biblical claim. "Assuming" is NOT a recommended, or respected act by any disciplined Historian.
Actually, this is total bollocks. I would tend to agree that, while dismissing something as non-existent on the basis of nothing other than lack of evidence is problematic, being skeptical of claims is still and always the rebuttable position. Moreover, in the case of something like the preposterously fictitious exodus, it isn't simply the absence of evidence (which is evidence of absence, regardless of absue of a particular mantra), it's the absence of evidence where we should expect to find a fucking abundance of it. No movement of such a large group could be expected to occur without leaving masses of physical evidence behind.
and to assume as well that after the fall of the Empire, that it's conquerors carefully preserved all of those records, is silly, as soon as one actually looks at it.
Here's the real problem, and it displays an ignorance of history so profound that, from here on in, when you describe yourself as a historian, I'm going to laugh my cock off at the very idea. The Roman Empire wasn't conquered, it morphed into the Christian empire, and guess where all the fucking records are?
You should try to curb your condescension, not least because every time you glibly assert your authority on anything, you follow it up with abject fuckwittery.