If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[shunyadragon]

Yes, you can, if it actually is a historical narrative. The problem is when people say, without good reason, that a narrative is historical.

Actually, Tassman and I disagree, historical narratives in and of themselves, are not facts. Your 'if' is a big 'IF' when referring to ancient historical narratives. There are rather dry and matter of fact official records of Roman government events and facts, but by and large 'narratives' are not facts, nor factual. For example, the historical narratives of Josephus. They indeed contain historical facts, but they also contained obvious later editing, exaggerations, and distortions of historical events from the perspective of Josephus.

[hansgeorg]

In the objective study of history you cannot equate historical narratives as facts.

I think on the contrary you can, as long as there are no special circumstances speaking against them.

What such could be would differ according to who is judging. A Humean would (with ludicrous circuulus vitiosus in probando) claim presence of miracles is. I would argue that ascribing divinity (but not humanity or phenomenality) to pagan gods and explaining Genesis in ways clashing with Genesis are.

Thus, while I believe Odin was in Uppsala (region), I don't take his word (as the benighted Swedes did back then) that he was present in the world before there was the world he created from the carcass of Ymer.

Because, I find another narrative more convincing.

Historical facts are those verified by archeological evidence.

O ... K .... then it is not a historical fact that Napoleon lost at Waterloo?

Yes the Biblical narratives in the OT and NT do contain historical facts that can be verified. but they also contain miraculous claims, and traditional myths that cannot be verified as historical facts.

You mean "verified apart from the narrative".

Yes, you can, if it actually is a historical narrative. The problem is when people say, without good reason, that a narrative is historical.

Well, if someone were tomorrow to say Lord of the Rings is a historical narrative of our very recent past, that would indeed be without good reason, but there is not a very great likelihood the claim should be made in serious and actually believed.

That is why, when a community presents a narrative as historical to it, I take it as historical, until proven otherwise by good evidence (such as more believable narratives).

You are missing that the evidence which is used for history is primarily - narratives.

I was not there when they fought the battle of Waterloo, and I therefore depend on precisely narratives reaching back presumably to those that were for any knowledge about the battle of Waterloo.

Actually, Tassman and I disagree, historical narratives in and of themselves, are not facts. Your 'if' is a big 'IF' when referring to ancient historical narratives. There are rather dry and matter of fact official records of Roman government events and facts, but by and large 'narratives' are not facts, nor factual. For example, the historical narratives of Josephus. They indeed contain historical facts, but they also contained obvious later editing, exaggerations, and distortions of historical events from the perspective of Josephus.

This portion : "There are rather dry and matter of fact official records of Roman government events and facts" - where exactly so? I mean, available to us.

Tacitus had access to such, but we access it through Tacitus, not from the official records.

Suetonius had access to such, but we access it through Suetonius, not from the offial records.

And so on.

[psstein]

In the objective study of history you cannot equate historical narratives as facts. Historical facts are those verified by archeological evidence. Yes the Biblical narratives in the OT and NT do contain historical facts that can be verified. but they also contain miraculous claims, and traditional myths that cannot be verified as historical facts.

There are no objective historical facts, period. Archeological evidence is subject to interpretation and is not "factual" in any real way.

[shunyadragon]

There are no objective historical facts, period. Archeological evidence is subject to interpretation and is not "factual" in any real way.

This is not what historians consider in terms of 'facts' in the historical method. For example:



The concept of Historical facts supported by evidence is a reality in the Historical Methodology. The discussion gets somewhat involved if you go further.

Do not confuse historical facts with the interpretation of those facts. Historical facts are indeed used in the interpretation of history. There is nothing controversial about this.

[psstein]

This is not what historians consider in terms of 'facts' in the historical method. For example:

The concept of Historical facts supported by evidence is a reality in the Historical Methodology. The discussion gets somewhat involved if you go further.

Do not confuse historical facts with the interpretation of those facts. Historical facts are indeed used in the interpretation of history. There is nothing controversial about this.

I don't know too many professional historians who still hold to Carr's conception of historical facts. And yes, this is controversial, believe it or not.

Historical knowledge is primarily chimerical, whereas your source seems to indicate that there are some objective facts lying behind the mass of historical evidence. I would submit, however, that primary sources don't actually tell us what truly happened, merely how the people who produced them a) remembered the events they narrate and b) how those people interpreted the events themselves.

[hansgeorg]

primary sources don't actually tell us what truly happened, merely how the people who produced them a) remembered the events they narrate and b) how those people interpreted the events themselves.

Which for nine cases out of ten coincides very well with what happened.

[Tassman]

You are missing that the evidence which is used for history is primarily - narratives.

Narratives unsupported by factual evidence are merely folk-tales that, more often than not, grow in the telling.

I was not there when they fought the battle of Waterloo, and I therefore depend on precisely narratives reaching back presumably to those that were for any knowledge about the battle of Waterloo.

[Doug Shaver]

Actually, Tassman and I disagree, historical narratives in and of themselves, are not facts.

That's a semantic quibble that could be relevant in some contexts. The statements in a historical narrative, if it actually is historical, are factual statements.

Your 'if' is a big 'IF' when referring to ancient historical narratives.

Yes, obviously. And it's what the debate should be focusing on. A narrative will say that certain things happened, and we want to know whether those things really did happen. To say "It's a historical narrative" is to beg the question. To claim that a historical narrative might be unfactual is to obfuscate the question.

For example, the historical narratives of Josephus. They indeed contain historical facts, but they also contained obvious later editing, exaggerations, and distortions of historical events from the perspective of Josephus.

In that case, his narratives are only partially historical. Alternatively, if we wish to be more noncommittal, we may say that they are ostensibly historical. There are methods for determining which parts of his narratives we can reasonably accept as factual, and it makes no sense to decide, before applying those methods, whether we should call the narratives "historical."

[shunyadragon]

That's a semantic quibble that could be relevant in some contexts. The statements in a historical narrative, if it actually is historical, are factual statements.

Your qualifier 'IF it actually is historical,' makes it problematic that you can consider ancient 'historical narratives' in and of themselves as factual. The statements in historical narratives may or may not be factual depending on the evidence available to support them as factual.

Yes, obviously. And it's what the debate should be focusing on. A narrative will say that certain things happened, and we want to know whether those things really did happen. To say "It's a historical narrative" is to beg the question. To claim that a historical narrative might be unfactual is to obfuscate the question.

This does not make sense.

In that case, his narratives are only partially historical. Alternatively, if we wish to be more noncommittal, we may say that they are ostensibly historical. There are methods for determining which parts of his narratives we can reasonably accept as factual, and it makes no sense to decide, before applying those methods, whether we should call the narratives "historical."

I never proposed that any facts recorded in historical narratives nor the narratives themselves could be considered factual before the historical methods are applied to evaluate the evidence to determine them to be factual or not, or possibly unresolved. My view is clear ancient 'historical narratives' cannot be assumed that they are in and of themselves factual, nor the events and statements in the narratives. Much of the content of ancient historical narratives remains unconfirmed as factual or not. Many apologists believe that if some statements, persons and events are found to be factual in the Bible, the Bible is therefore a for the most part a factual document.

By the way this really old dusty turf gone over many times in the past.

[hansgeorg]

Narratives unsupported by factual evidence are merely folk-tales that, more often than not, grow in the telling.

The factual evidence in history is primarily narrative.

How do you demonstrate the Viennese Congress without - narrative?

How do you demonstrate Napoleon's exile on St Helen without - narrative?

Since Napoleon's law code is now the basis of French law, and since it has been widely copied over other countries, how do you prove from law texts enforced in the present that Napoleon lost back in 1815 without - once again, narrative?

And note, proving arcaeologicall that Waterloo was a battle field or proving Gettisburg was a battle field does not prove which side won.

[Tassman]

The factual evidence in history is primarily narrative.

How do you demonstrate the Viennese Congress without - narrative?

How do you demonstrate Napoleon's exile on St Helen without - narrative?

Since Napoleon's law code is now the basis of French law, and since it has been widely copied over other countries, how do you prove from law texts enforced in the present that Napoleon lost back in 1815 without - once again, narrative?

And note, proving arcaeologicall that Waterloo was a battle field or proving Gettisburg was a battle field does not prove which side won.

No one is belittling the need for narrative merely that without factual evidence it is no more than logically fallacious Argument from Hearsay

[hansgeorg]

You are still not getting that in history, the factual evidence IS mainly narrative.

What you are doing is more like debunking history than setting it on firmer grounds than I do!

[JimL]

You are still not getting that in history, the factual evidence IS mainly narrative.

So are fables.

What you are doing is more like debunking history than setting it on firmer grounds than I do!

Jonah was set on firmer grounds too, when after spending three days in the belly of a whale he was vomited, fully intact, onto dry land.

[shunyadragon]

The factual evidence in history is primarily narrative.

How do you demonstrate the Viennese Congress without - narrative?

How do you demonstrate Napoleon's exile on St Helen without - narrative?

Since Napoleon's law code is now the basis of French law, and since it has been widely copied over other countries, how do you prove from law texts enforced in the present that Napoleon lost back in 1815 without - once again, narrative?

And note, proving arcaeologicall that Waterloo was a battle field or proving Gettisburg was a battle field does not prove which side won.

Careful, your confusing modern historical narratives, and historical records with ancient traditional historical narratives. In the discipline of academic history they are very different. Examples of ancient traditional historical narratives are the 'Iliad and the Odyssey, and the books of the Bible. The problem of the discussion here is ancient historical narratives most often presented in story form, and not modern historical narratives and historical records. Let's start with a basic definition:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative_history

Narrative history is the practice of writing history in a story-based form. It is generally distinguished from a purely analytical form of history. Though history is considered a social science, the story-based nature of history allows for the inclusion of a greater or lesser degree of narration in addition to an analytical or interpretative exposition of historical knowledge. It can be divided into two subgenres: the traditional narrative and the modern narrative.

Traditional narrative focuses on the chronological order of history, it is event driven and tends to center upon individuals, action, and intention. For example, in regard to the French Revolution, a historian who works with the traditional narrative might be more interested in the revolution as a single entity (one revolution), centre it in Paris, and rely heavily upon large figures such as Maximilien Robespierre.

Conversely, modern narrative typically focuses on structures and general trends. A modern narrative would break from rigid chronology if the historian felt it explained the concept better. In terms of the French Revolution, a historian working with the modern narrative might show general traits that were shared by revolutionaries across France but would also illustrate regional variations from those general trends (many confluent revolutions). Also this type of historian might use different sociological factors to show why different types of people supported the general revolution.

Historians who use the modern narrative might say that the traditional narrative focuses too much on what happened and not enough on why and causation. Also, that this form of narrative reduces history into neat boxes and thereby does an injustice to history. J H Hexter characterized such historians as "lumpers". In an essay on Christopher Hill, he remarked that "lumpers do not like accidents: they would prefer them vanish...The lumping historian wants to put all of the past into boxes..and then to tie all the boxes together into one nice shapely bundle."

Historians who use traditional narrative might say that the modern narrative overburdens the reader with trivial data that had no significant effect on the progression of history; that it is the historian's duty to take out what is inconsequential from history because to do otherwise might commit an injustice to the reader, who might end up believing that minor trivial events were actually important.

© Copyright Original Source

An interesting source that discusses 'historical narratives,' historical evidence, and historical facts is here:

History and Theory Vol. 26, No. 4, Dec., 1987. The Truth of Historical Narratives
C. Behan McCullagh

Vol. 26, No. 4, Beiheft 26: The Representation of Historical Events (Dec., 1987), pp. 30-46
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University.

I currently do not have access to this source I used as a reference in a Bibliography for an article I wrote, but if I get access I will cite more from this source.

[shunyadragon]

This source goes into detail concerning the Biblical historical narratives and academic history: