The B12 (XII) Forum, home of the 'Front Porch, y'all' at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Lately I've had interest in reading some topic-specific history that references and cites original sources.  It's been neat because I never thought much about how historians know history.  I've learned a bit about their methodology, criteria for holding that historical documents are likely accurate and true, and found some of these documents online to read for myself. 

There's been a few mild surprises in what historical sources actually say compared to what I remember learning in history books.  Not anything major, like we covered up aliens or something.  Just some things here and there that look like authors either didn't process the full scope of available material or else decided to skip over a few things.

In most cases.  There are some things in widespread use out there that are egregious. 

One of the key skills my students have to learn is to analyze primary-source documents for their content and their credibility.
You can't take any of them at face value except at great risk of misperceiving them.
They can be factually wrong on purpose.  Or by accident.  To see this in action, it's useful to read accounts from opposing commanders of the same piece of a battle--say, the fight for the Peach Orchard on 2 July 1863 at Gettysburg.  They won't have the same time, the same actions, the same understanding of why the winner won and the loser lost, or even who the winner and loser were.  And it's not because they were lying, necessarily, although it could be that.  It's also that when they wrote their reports, their faulty human memories didn't remember it the way it was.

[img width=160.994 height=500]https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/by-default-2021-08-10-at-8.51.45-PM.jpg[/img]

Is that really an SI publication that put the horns-down?  How... professional.

OU/USCe would pit Lincoln Riley vs Shane Beemer, assuming they are still there when time comes.  OU vs Tenn would be OK.  Riley vs Heupel.  It is always good to kick orange buttocks.

Life in the SEC.

many times, the newbie in the conference draws the short straw

One of the key skills my students have to learn is to analyze primary-source documents for their content and their credibility.
You can't take any of them at face value except at great risk of misperceiving them.
They can be factually wrong on purpose.  Or by accident.  To see this in action, it's useful to read accounts from opposing commanders of the same piece of a battle--say, the fight for the Peach Orchard on 2 July 1863 at Gettysburg.  They won't have the same time, the same actions, the same understanding of why the winner won and the loser lost, or even who the winner and loser were.  And it's not because they were lying, necessarily, although it could be that.  It's also that when they wrote their reports, their faulty human memories didn't remember it the way it was.

I haven't done a ton with anything recent enough to do something like that.  I've been mainly interested in more ancient history to give me some more insights as part of an apologetics class I teach at my church.  i.e., how well attested are the events of the New Testament compared to other accepted events of history, what parts do different scholars agree on and disagree on, and why, is the Christian origin story supported by any other historical texts that didn't wind up cannonized in the Bible, how much confidence is there that with no original manuscripts the copies we have are accurate....that kind of thing. 

It's only tangentially related to what I started looking for, but there's a lot less corroboration to what "we" know about more ancient history (with any certainty) than I'd have guessed.  What counts for rock-solid in number of sources is not as much as I'd have thought.  There's not that many primary sources to consult.  I would assume that the number of primary sources (or copies) increases as events get more recent.  But I dunno. 

I've got some books in my cue that get into American history, which is obviously more recent.  Should be interesting, I hope. 

Not my specialty at all.  I reckon you get into Josephus as one of your sources.

Tangentially, I took a class at OU called History of Ancient Israel, and it was cross-listed as a history class, a religion class, and a (IIRC) philosophy class.  We had an academic textbook and we had the Bible.  The translation that the instructor, who was a Jewish Rabbi, urged us to get was the Jerusalem Bible, which was a modern translation sponsored by the Catholic Church.  He said that it was the one most faithful to the original texts available in modern-day English.  He was only talking about the Old Testament.  He offered no opinion on the NT, and we didn't get into it in the course.
This was ca. 1975, and there has been a New Jerusalem Bible out for quite a few years.  I still have my original one, though.

Josephus and a small handful of others.  There just aren't that many, as far as I can tell.  But fortunately they did write pretty extensively.  

My $0.02 on Bible translations, and take it for the sticker price....due to the massive differences not only between modern English and ancient Hebrew, but also between the mindset and perceptual framework of the OT authors and modern westerners attempting to translate and read, it renders the question of which Bible is "closest" somewhat moot.  Somewhat, I say.  Some differences are dependent on the purpose of the translation itself, which is a valid variable, and other times differences depend on where on the spectrum from completely literal to completely idea-conveying the translation team settles.  There's always a tradeoff between the two out of necessity, and the question of which end of that spectrum is best is not obvious either, which is why different versions begin with the goal of where on that line they aim for.  

It's not as boring to learn about as it probably sounds, at least to me.  Anyway, I don't doubt that the Jerusalem Bible nails some given translation ethos better than other versions, the paradigm of which the Rabbi may have deemed important or interesting, or both.  

Holy Schnikies yes it's boring.  Take it to "C-Dubb's Thread of Painfully Boring History Crap" or something.

This thread is for rivalry talk.  It's 2:47 PM and ou still sucks!

And you may not be a rival yet, Tigers, but we've got our eyes on you.