Favorite era of History
- Thread starter Soda7777777
- Start date
The rise of the first cities and the invention of writing.What happened in Sumer in 3200 BCE?
India in the time of Buddha would be interesting.
I'm more familiar with the first-century Imperial era, thanks to countless readings/viewings of I, Claudius, and reading Suetonius and Tacitus.Dachs said:
I'd avoid Rome itself during Caligula's reign, though. Being his friend was no guarantee of safety (not that I would want him as a friend).
Besides, the Crucifixion happened during Tiberius' reign. It would be interesting to see what non-religious notice got taken of it.
trader/warrior
Deity
Hmm. Classical Greece would be nice. Or maybe Norway in the 900s preferebly as a jarl or minor king 
Also the Paris Commune would be nice if I could just stop by for a visit.
Also the Paris Commune would be nice if I could just stop by for a visit.
In the British History Magazine podcast, they have a "time machine" section where they ask English historians "when" they would like to visit. It's always something like; " June, 1941 - I want to ask Hitler what the hell he was thinking!" But it's just a visit and you get zapped back to the future before the Gestapo nab you and toss you in with John Demnanuk.
Actually living in the past isn't all it's cracked-up to be, as several have already pointed out. My daughter, a senior at Kent State, always laughs when I talk about the good-old-days before the interet, Ipods or cells. The only thing I really regret is the extinction of the V-8 - roaring down Route-66 (today I-40) at 100mph with Grand Funk Railroad blasting out the speakers. I like to read about history, but noone in their right-mind would want to move there.
Actually living in the past isn't all it's cracked-up to be, as several have already pointed out. My daughter, a senior at Kent State, always laughs when I talk about the good-old-days before the interet, Ipods or cells. The only thing I really regret is the extinction of the V-8 - roaring down Route-66 (today I-40) at 100mph with Grand Funk Railroad blasting out the speakers. I like to read about history, but noone in their right-mind would want to move there.
I don't think it would be very interesting, since as far as anyone can tell, no-one did take any non-religious notice of it (any more than they did the gazillions of other crucifixions that happened all the time). Subsequent non-Christian references to Jesus are all ultimately dependent upon Christian sources.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
This is a hypothesis, not a fact. A bad one at that. Scholars don't see many contradictions between Christians sources and secular sources that refer to Christ, and since they presume Christianity is not supernatural, they draw the lines that say that therefore the secular sources used Christian sources. There is no evidence that Josephus', Tacitus', Suetonius', or Pliny's references to Jesus were drawn from any specific writings.
You're really into Napoleon and Thomas Jefferson?
Duc d'Orange
Chieftain
I'd go with Enrico to Constantinople. It would be interesting to speak with him. Blind, Pious, and deadly.
Soda7777777
Warlord
Sort of, it seems like we're always taught that 1800-2000 are the most important eras of history. Probably because America views itself as the best thing ever.
It's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, though. It seems very unlikely that Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny had any access to non-Christian or non-Jewish sources about Jesus. They all mention Jesus only in the context of talking about Christians. They know who the Christians are (roughly) and they know that they are followers of Christ (more or less); obviously they know the latter because they know the former. They demonstrate no knowledge of Jesus beyond that. Tacitus seems to think that "Christ" was Jesus' name, and Suetonius doesn't even get that right, calling him "Chrestus" and apparently thinking that he was a contemporary leader of the Christians.
The only one of the people you mention who I think could plausibly have access to knowledge of Jesus that doesn't come from Christianity is Josephus, since he mentions Jesus in the course of discussing various itinerant charismatic figures of the time, rather than in the course of discussing Christianity (as the pagan writers mentioned do). But there are notorious problems with Josephus' discussion of Jesus. There is little doubt that he did discuss Jesus, but precisely what he said about him is uncertain.
No, that is not a fair reconstruction of the reasoning. It's got nothing to do with whether Christianity is supernatural or not (whatever, precisely, that means). The question is where the non-Christian writers got their knowledge about Jesus from. Why would the supernatural nature or otherwise of Christianity itself have any bearing on that? Would someone who thinks that Christianity is supernatural therefore suppose that Tacitus and Suetonius were divinely inspired when they wrote about Jesus? Why would anyone think that? The question of the inspiration of Christianity may be relevant when discussing Christian sources such as the Gospels but I cannot see how it is relevant when discussing pagan ones. Now the reason why it is reasonable to think that the pagan authors derived their knowledge of Jesus from Christian sources is not merely the lack of contradiction between these two groups of sources (and, as I indicated, there are contradictions between them, at least in the case of Suetonius) but the sheer paucity of information in the pagan sources. They tell us nothing beyond the sheer existence of Jesus and the fact that Christians were his followers. Since the pagan authors could obviously have gleaned that from the barest knowledge of Christianity itself, why posit any other sources for them?
No, but when I say "Christian sources" I don't necessarily mean Christian writings. I just mean that their knowledge came via Christianity rather than via some wholly non-Christian route. For example, Pliny might have heard the name "Jesus" when interrogating Christians - there's no reason to suppose that he read any Christian texts. It seems very reasonable to suppose that all of these people knew about Christianity as a new religious movement, simply because they knew what was going on in Rome and elsewhere, and they knew that Christians were some kind of sect who were followers of somebody called Christ. They might, or they might not, know the additional fact that this Christ was someone who was executed under Pontius Pilate. And they wouldn't have to have any access to non-Christian sources to know these things - they would know them because the Christians themselves made no secret of it. Why hypothesise additional sources of this knowledge when no such sources are necessary to explain it?
With all due respect to your knowledge of historical fact, Plotinus, you appear to lack imagination. I would like to go back to that period in time (and the place) to see what REALLY happened. And just because there are few non-Christian sources surviving to this day, that doesn't mean there weren't any back then.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
So you could try and convince the Brits to stay out of it?
No. I just want to see it all happen.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
To actually Live in? Right now.
To fondly remember and fantasize about? 1920s.
To fondly remember and fantasize about? 1920s.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
The Ottomans at their peak. Istanbul in Suleiman's time would be fascinating. Plus the international politics of the 1500s have just the right amount of religiousness, Royal Ambition, proto-Nationalism and gunpowder to make it unbelievably exciting.
Also. Colonial and early republican America.
Also. The Fall of the Berlin Wall
Also. The meeting between the Pope and Attila.
Also. Colonial and early republican America.
Also. The Fall of the Berlin Wall
Also. The meeting between the Pope and Attila.
Ah well, if you want to see what really happened, that's another matter. I still don't think there's any reason to think that any non-Christians or non-Jews had anything to say about the event though - Jesus of Nazareth seems to have made less of an impact upon society at the time than other figures such as John the Baptist, "the Egyptian" who marched upon Jerusalem, and similar characters.
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
1955, to stop younger Biff from getting his hands on the sports almanac.
Similar threads
