@Thomas,
Quote:Historians are not entitled to claim that they know something when they don't. If their only source for some event is an unreliable source, then they don't know, and the proper response is to be forthright about it. To say "oh well, let's settle for unreliable sources then", is not the proper response --- not for a historian, not for any honest intellectual
If what you say really applies to current historians, then dishonesty abounds. Not all historians are honest.
A common example if the Egyptian ancient chronology, which is based on the words of Manetho, the Egyptian historian and priest.
Later research pointed out a 500 years mistake in that chronology, where Ramses II wasn't born until 5 centuries after the Exodus, and that the Iliad and Odyssey were written by Homer itself, not so by "someone else" five hundred years later.
A pharaoh's tomb was uncovered and vases and ceramic that belongs to a five hundred years old style were found, and historians explained it as "looting of old tombs to use the vases for the funeral of the recent dead pharaoh".
We are witness of dishonesty, with the purpose to cover up their established chronological mistake.
Another example is the walls of Babylon, where between the cows and horses figures, the image of a weird species is also observed in the walls. The historians assumed it as a legendary representation of something. Perhaps the imaginary dragon, very common in ancient cultures.
But, that species indeed existed, because its fossils were found later on, but, even with the evidence at front, historians do not accept that such a species lived in an era where the walls of Babylon were built. This denial might be in order to support the evolution theory, which assumes this species as existing millions of years ago.
The difference between a case in civil court and the work of historians is that historians are not subjected to any law. The same applies to biologists, physicists, and others with their own theories.
There is a "freedom of speech" and they can theorize anything and designate between themselves their own authorities, who will side up to any interpretation that is approved according to their convenience.
No wonder, then, that even with evidence at hand, some historians prefer to deny the existence of Jesus two thousand years ago, in order to please someone or something else. There is no way to stop their doings, freedom of speech must be respected.
So, in this topic about Jesus existence there won't be any final verdict like in a civil court case, but a continued disagreement, like between lions and hyenas in the peaceful savannah.
