L.A. Marzulli

[aNorthernSoul]

I do read a lot, it occupies a good chunk of time. History was always a favorite subject of mine and I almost went to school with hopes of being a historian or a curator at a museum, but opted for the family business as it was a much more secured venture, though history and stories past are still a huge interest of mine.

I always look at history books with a skeptical eye though as I understand who the books are written by. You can use most of the information in them, but there is so much information in there that I often view as speculative or even worse, manipulated. I enjoy hearing opinions and theories, even some of the more obtuse ones, but hearing and beleiving are quite far apart, and I have a hard time beleiving anything that hasn't scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or I haven't witnessed with my own eyes, and even then, science and the human brain are fickle things.

Yeah, I agree a healthy skepticism provides a good filter for anything, including science. Really, for something to constitute as science, it need only be repeatable in a laboratory setting. And, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it also have to be able to be proven wrong? I am pretty sure I was reading that somewhere... Anyway, as we don't have a complete understanding of the universe, time, and reality for that matter, it makes it hard to know exactly what all the possible elements that may interact with an experiment are... so even if you're right, you may find the experiment winds up proving you wrong. Everything is suspect in my opinion... all one can do is philosophize when it comes right down to it.

I think one key thing to remember about the bible as a document is that it really isn't a "history book." Some portions are books, collection of letters, witness accounts and in a way, essays at times written by a number of different people. This idea, combined with the additional books excluded from the original compilation is essential in properly addressing the text(s) in my opinion. Then you can also delve into the method of translation as well... Have you ever looked at the alternate translation of the book of Daniel? It's pretty interesting reading. I forget what it is called, reverse interlinear translation perhaps? Basically, it's an alternate why to translate the old language and it does read quite comprehensively yet has some VERY different messages... it makes one wonder if we even have a perfect translation of some of these older texts.

In the end, though, all history books -- regardless of who writes them -- are fiction. You have a few blips of raw data. What goes between is "your" interpretation.

You weren't there. You don't really know what the participants were thinking or truly being motivated by. Even memoirs are putting their best foot forward and just designed to masturbate.

And when a new generation of history professors come along, how do you think they will make a name for themselves? By referring you to the previous generations' professors? No, by overturning them and reinterpreting their works. Even if their own revisionist reinterpretation is complete BS. You revise. It becomes politically correct. Then someone revises you. On it goes.

History -- like everything else -- is written to fit market demands. If people don't want to see it that way, then they'll write it some other way.

In the end, nobody really knows what the hell happened. I think your best response to "historical accuracy" is a burst of laughter.

Meh, I don't think that's a very healthy approach. Like everything else, I think you need to use your own wits to take in the data and scope out your own interpretation. History is no different than present day reality itself in this way... in my unprofessional opinion.