Pontius Pilate had no evidence outside the Bible corroborating his existence, until 1961 when this stone was found.
Pilate is mentioned by Tacitus, by Josephus and by Philo of Alexandria, all writing in the first century, and by Eusebius, in the third century. Many of their references to him do not relate to anything in the scriptural accounts - e.g. Philo tells of Pilate erecting imperial symbols in Herod’s palace, of the Jewish authorities complaining to Rome about this, and of Pilate being disciplined by the Emperor Tiberius.
The Pilate Stone was the first physical evidence for Pilate, but there was certainly extra-scriptural evidence for him right back to the first century, and of course the office which he was said to have filled certainly existed. I don’t think he was ever regarded as mythical.
There is an ancient stone in Cornwall, with inscriptions tentatively dated to the 6th century, that gives some support to the existence of Tristan
http://www.kingarthursknights.com/structures/tristanstone.asp
according to 16th c antiquarian John Leland, it also mentioned Iselde at time.
Of course this may simply mean that these names were familiar or common at that time.
I think the highland gorilla was once considered a myth. A story brought back by early African explorers. Later some live ones were captured and brought back.
You’re right. I keep using pyramids as a shorthand because that’s the cultural myth we’re trying to overturn, but I should note that I’m using it in that sense.
The myth is pervasive and very old. It comes from Josephus. The Answers in Genesis crowd use their imaginary chronology to redo time to have the Israelites build some of the later mud-brick pyramids. Menachem Begin of all people went to Egypt in 1977 and said “We built the pyramids” for I guess political reasons.
The point remains that absolutely none of it is true. Cosmopolitan Egypt certainly must have seen some visitors who were what we would today consider to be Jews but not a word of the Exodus story has any backup at all. Many people desperately want the events depicted in the Old and New Testament to be true so they jump on the most tenuous connections and turn them into bricks and mortar and construct edifices on top of nothingness. Unless some radical new evidence appears, however, it’s all myth from start to end.
You seem to be assuming that (1) mammoth skulls are found in a state of perfect preservation, and (2) that the Greeks regularly butchered elephants. Neither is likely to be true.
That is also not true. There are lot of things in Exodus which are in consonance with history. The Egyptians did in fact use foreign slaves, including from the Canaan, which they ruled for hundreds of years. They did take sons of foreign princes as [del]hostages[/del] honoured guests, and raise them Egyptian ways. They did have foreigners rise high in Egyptian society, Ramses’s dynasty is now thought to have been of foreign origin. The Egyptians also had no problem in erasing the records of now disliked Pharaohs or military setbacks.
Its in short like Troy. Probably accurate in its general strokes and more so than expected.
For (2), no; I’m just assuming that a large and oddly-placed nose hole (the technical term) would be recognized by people who regularly butchered swine and cattle and who also traded in ivory. The point about imperfect preservation, on the other hand, gives me more pause.
I agree there’s a kernel of truth in those legends, no doubt. However, the numbers and dates are past any possible credulity. No way the Exodus involved 600000 adult males (meaning around 2MM total). Not even a tenth of that.
It’s kinda cheating(im not saying you are) to “defend” Richard III by pointing out flaws in Shakespeare’s play. Far too many of Richard’s apologists point out the flaws in the Play. The play is meant as fiction, a fiction with some historical merit but fiction nonetheless.
From what I remember Richard was not called a hunchback by his peers, or those who talked to his peers years afterwards. More for instance described him as a crooke back.
So a bit like Jesus then?
The legends about King Arthur are in consonance with history. That’s hardly surprising. People living in a part of the world are probably familiar with the general tenor of its history and culture. What’s needed for history is evidence and details and specifics. Of which there are none for this subject. Literally none.
Slavery in ancient Egypt gives a fascinating account of the many forms and complexities of slavery in the country. And talk about antiquity!