Is it permissible to be skeptical of orthodox histories?
Your sarcasm aside, it is not merely permissible but is actively encouraged. Mind you it is one thing to be sceptical, it is another to be able to substantiate criticisms or alternatives. The proponent bears the burden of proof. We find.
It is quite hard to find original texts. Most have long been lost and all we have is alleged copies.
Whatever your ruse, in the case of Biblical texts we have Hebrew versions many centuries older than Wycliffe's translation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
Not in question is the necessity of translations post dating original texts.
Fomenko has published 4 of his proposed 7 volumes of proof. There must be more than 5000 pages so far of detailed evidence and analysis. I have only read about 2000 pages and skimmed the rest - very impressive material. (Debunkers seem to require only about one page)
His datings of the astrological depictions in Egyptian tombs are particularly disturbing for those dependent upon the Jewish Old Testament.
And his proposals about Russian and European history are equally disturbing for the Anglophile
Not in question is the necessity of translations post dating original texts.
Whether or not a translator uses the very first version of a text, the version from which he or she translates is the original with regard to that translation.
Not in question is the necessity of translations post dating original texts.
Fomenko has published 4 of his proposed 7 volumes of proof. There must be more than 5000 pages so far of detailed evidence and analysis. I have only read about 2000 pages and skimmed the rest - very impressive material. (Debunkers seem to require only about one page)
I am not going to waste much of my time personally acquainting myself with details of an ongoing global conspiracy which, if true, must necessarily involve all scholars and lay historians in Western, Hebrew, Islamic, Hindu and Chinese traditions (and others) and millions of other support workers, all to continue a medieval con intended to attract visitors to monasteries. It is utterly preposterous.
About 1580 Scaliger rewrote the chronology of history: "to revolutionize perceived ideas of ancient chronology—to show that ancient history is not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprises that of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart; and that the historical narratives and fragments of each of these, and their several systems of chronology, must be critically compared."
According to Fomenko the chronology of history given by Scaliger has been the basis for history ever since, despite the objections of Newton, Freud, Ford, Velikovsky and now Fomenko. Is it time to revisit the chronology of history, or is Scaliger's view in 1580 sufficient for the next millenium?
About 1580 Scaliger rewrote the chronology of history: "to revolutionize perceived ideas of ancient chronology—to show that ancient history is not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprises that of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart; and that the historical narratives and fragments of each of these, and their several systems of chronology, must be critically compared."
According to Fomenko the chronology of history given by Scaliger has been the basis for history ever since, despite the objections of Newton, Freud, Ford, Velikovsky and now Fomenko. Is it time to revisit the chronology of history, or is Scaliger's view in 1580 sufficient for the next millenium?
Scaliger did not "rewrite" history, as YOUR link and YOUR quote therefrom show he expanded on his contemporaries' narrow concepts to encompass neglected but existing accounts.
The chronologies of Ancient History ARE being reviewed:
Never believer everything you read as the old saying goes, but teachers are given set texts to teach as part of an agreed curriculum. These are constantly revised as science and history are revised.
Utterley preposterous? And you are not going to acqaint yourself with the details (which you think are preposterous)?
Utterley preposterous? And you are not going to acqaint yourself with the details (which you think are preposterous)?
No. The broad concept is preposterous, the details I have read are flawed and others who have studied it depth have given rational and solid arguments against it. I am therefore justified in exercising discernment by way of rational discrimination and saving my precious time (even “Paul” admits to only skimming most of what text has been published).
Requiring one reads several volumes in order to form an opinion is a fallacious argument: By extension, are you not going to acquaint yourself with the details of every history text in every language so as to form a fair idea of the case for the reality of pre-medieval history as opposed to Fomenko’s case for its non-reality?
I have read everything YOU have actually posted here on the subject and have looked further than that (enough to come to an informed opinion). Even you admit to little more than skimming over the incomplete text.
>Even you admit to little more than skimming over the incomplete text.
Actually I read the first 2 or 3 volumes fairly carefully, taking a lot of time over the statistical analyses of historical accounts and the astrological analyses. I found it very impressive material, but I started to lose strength when he came to detailed analysis of Russian history.
There are some interesting assumptions behind Occam's Razor including:
- Logical analysis necessarily clarifies situations - Choosing the simplest (least disturbing) explanation has no consequences.
It hardly seems necessary to point to the early computer acronym: GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
And choosing the least disturbing explanation may result in yet another generation of counter-productive effort. E.g. global finances, climate change, free trade, wireless radiation, profit-based chemicals (thalidomide, 245T), genetically modified foods, etc