» Sun Jul 08, 2012 8:12 am It seems like the vast majority of the eludites in the historical/archaeology community often disregard the primary sources of these events as simple exaggerations or fabrications. Yet, with all the examples listed above, their validity has been proven by those persistent few that have placed faith in the sources of those that have written of them during that time.
For examples: Jesus. I have heard some say that there exists no evidence whatsoever about his historicity, and some will even say he existed but not even on the merits of those who wrote of him during his lifetime such as Pliny. He was the provincial governor of Pontus during this time, and he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan of the cult of Christians who refused to admit to the divinity of the Emperor, but instead worshiped "christus." Now, this is a person, among two other Roman writers -- Tacitus and Suetonius, who had nothing good to say of this whole group of people nor its leader. However, there persists skepticism towards them, so much that their writings aren't even considered admissible evidence. The same can be said for the Jewish writers of that time, which had very few good things to say of this group, notably from Josephus who wrote a nice solid paragraph of this man, detailing the crucifixion. This man was Jewish heart and mind, and he did not accept the Christian teachings and would have joined with the Jewish leaders in accepting that they were heretical. Skepticism is a necessary tool, but blind skepticism is simply that, blind ignorance.
Look at the case for Troy. Heinrich Schliemann was a German archaeologist who made the discovery of its location. While the rest of the historical/archaeological community persisted that its location lie in some place contrary to the specifications wrote of in the Iliad, Schliemann decided to follow that source and lo and behold, he found it's location. Interestingly, the treasure he found which he attributed to King Prium, the historical/archaeological community says it is of an age 300 years before that time. Yet, it is my contention that the time period is simply an educated guess. They don't know for sure when it was, and with many of the newer discoveries of ruins 10,000 years and older, the historical timeline will need to be revised anyway.
I think this type of blind skepticism is something actually more modern, something that wasn't seen before the 18th century. Possibly, it was one of the waste products of the Enlightenment which has continued to the modern age.
It's a poison. To be so skeptical so as not to even place a modicum of trust in the writers of the time period with which they are writing is a sad testimony to the state of historical research, which has continued into the modern era, with the lack of attention paid to the newfound antediluvian structures thousands of years older than the pyramids of Egypt.
