I don't accept the 'historical' standard of evidence for things that I might actually have to care about if they were true.
All historical knowledge is provisional and subject to revision upon the discovery of new evidence.
If social policy on homosexuality, public school science curricula, and United States foreign policy in the Middle East depended on whether William Shakespeare really wrote the plays that are attributed to him, then I would want better evidence that he did. Since many people claim that these issues should be determined by what the Bible says, I want better evidence for the historical claims upon which the Bible's authority is thought to depend.
Historical standards of evidence are what they are because of the uses to which we put historical information. If you want to use historical information to establish the supernatural authority of an ancient book of myths and legends , it is appropriate to require a different standard of evidence.
no subject
All historical knowledge is provisional and subject to revision upon the discovery of new evidence.
If social policy on homosexuality, public school science curricula, and United States foreign policy in the Middle East depended on whether William Shakespeare really wrote the plays that are attributed to him, then I would want better evidence that he did. Since many people claim that these issues should be determined by what the Bible says, I want better evidence for the historical claims upon which the Bible's authority is thought to depend.
Historical standards of evidence are what they are because of the uses to which we put historical information. If you want to use historical information to establish the supernatural authority of an ancient book of myths and legends , it is appropriate to require a different standard of evidence.