THE Question

A member of an email group to which I belong recently asked a couple of rather difficult questions which, altho sorely tempted to duck, I have attempted to answer below.  I'd be interested to hear anyone else's views on this: 

question :
how do you know what is reliable historically ?
what makes one ancient writing evidence, while another
is not?

Some ancient 'stories' which have commonly been thought of as myth or fable, such as the Illiad for example, are now through archeological research being reassessed as factually accurate in the light of evidentiary findings, specifically at the site of Troy and other locations from the story.  Others once believed to be accurate renderings of real events such as the battle of Jericho, which has been the subject of research undertaken by Israeli archeologists, have been found to be myth at least in part.  Jericho did not exist at the time when Joshua was blowing his horn :O)

 

Some ancient writing we can know to be true because the evidence is there, others we can know to be untrue or allegorical because the events depicted cannot literally have happened.  There are and have been many ugly women for example but none with living snakes for hair who turn those who see them into stone.

 

Yet others we believe or disbelieve because we want them to be true, and we want that enough to make the leap of faith and take what we read as truth.  There are many who believe that Joseph of Arithmea came to the west of England, and some go further and claim that he brought the young Christ with him.  There's no evidence imo and I believe this story to be no more than wishful thinking, altho many would point to certain trees which customarily but unseasonally blossom on specific religious dates and claim they were descended from the tree which grew when Joseph of Arithmea thrust his staff into the ground.

 

Most in the West once, and some now believe that Genesis is a factual rendition of how the world came into being.   Having for many years regularly read the work of Steven Jay Gould and several other paleantological and botanical archeologists I believe that the mass of evidence indicates (I meant to say rather 'proves') that evolution is the true explanation.  However, like Darwin himself stated in his opus (altho it is usually ignored or unknown), evolution does not explain nor attempt to explain how life began - Darwin credited the originary gift of life itself to God, and so do I.