Best products from r/badhistory

> I've never actually read Maccabees I and II as its outside the Tanach

Yea the only reason I looked into it is because my Rabbi brought it up.

>and any learning I did, but is it a retelling of the same narrative twice or part I and part II respectively?

The first book shows the struggle between Pious Jews (The Maccabees) vs Seleucid King & The Jews that supported the king. The second book creates the terms "Judaism" and "Hellenism", which were coined by the author. Really this is an internal civil war between a pious people and those who were wanted to assimilate into Greek lifestyle. The Maccabees of course forced converted these non-pious people by forced circumcision and massacre.


It is also worth noting that neither book actually mentioned the 'miracle' of the oil. They talk about the re-dedication and the second book talks about 8 days (again going back to Sukkot). The second book even calls back to the feast of booths, and they talk about what could even be the lulav and etrog.

To quote:

1 Maccabees 4:52-59 reads:

Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Kislev, in the one hundred forty-eighth year, they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of the burn offering that they had built. At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals… So they celebrated the dedication of the altar for eight days, and joyfully offered burnt offerings… Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Kislev.

2 Maccabees, is a more stylized and less historically accurate account. 2 Maccabees 10:5-9 reads:

It happened that on the same day on which the sanctuary had been profaned by the foreigners, the purification of the sanctuary took place, that is, on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which was Kislev. They celebrated it for eight days with rejoicing….therefore, carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place. They decreed by public edict, ratified by vote, that the whole nation of the Jews should observe these days every year.

The entire story of the oil lasting for 8 days comes out of the Rabbinic tradition.

It is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud in tractate Shabbat 21b:

What is [the reason of] Chanuka? For our Rabbis taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev [commence] the days of Chanukah, which are eight on which a lamentation for the dead and fasting are forbidden. For when the Greeks entered the Temple, they defiled all the oils therein, and when the Hasmonean dynasty prevailed against and defeated them, they made search and found only one cruse of oil which lay with the seal of the High Priest, but which contained sufficient for one day’s lighting only; yet a miracle was wrought therein and they lit [the lamp] therewith for eight days. The following year these [days] were appointed a Festival with [the recital of] Hallel and thanksgiving.

> I've never seen this nor read this anywhere but I'd love to hear you out on that one!

I could type this up, but it is easier to scan it, apologies for my laziness.

Here is the album of 5 pages.

It compares the story side by side with Exodus, and shows the similarities in the names essentially one letter difference (which was commonly switched in Aramaic) is the only change from Moses to Mattathias is essentially a one letter difference in transliteration.

>So they had to wait the seven days THEN as purified people make some NEW oil then light the menorah. So yes it could've been any oil but they had to be pure when it was made and when they lit the menorah

The stories don't follow those accounts, they speak of very long times between victory, and re-dedication. Although I think the latter part of your comments are answered already in the sources in the first part of this posts.

Oh also it is worth noting that the Talmud only tells us to light a single candle and only the very zealous should light more:

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat, page 21b

Our Rabbis taught: The commandment of Chanukah requires one light per household; the zealous kindle a light for each member of the household; and the extremely zealous -- Beit Shammai maintain: On the first day eight lights are lit and thereafter they are gradually reduced [by one each day]; but Beit Hillel say: On the first day one is lit and thereafter they are progressively increased. Ulla said: In the West [Eretz Yisrael] two amoraim, R. Jose b. Abin and R. Jose b. Zebida, differ concerning this: one maintains, the reasoning of Beit Shammai is that it should correspond to the days still to come, and that of Beit Hillel is that it shall correspond to the days that are gone. But another maintains: Beit Shammai's reason is that it shall correspond to the bullocks of the Festival [of Tabernacles; i.e. Sukkot], while Beit Hillel's reason is that we increase in matters of sanctity but do not reduce.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: There are two old men in Sidon: one did as Beth Shammai and the other as Beth Hillel: the former gave the reason of his action that it should correspond to the bullocks of the Festival, while the latter stated his reason because we promote in [matters of] sanctity but do not reduce.

Our Rabbis taught: It is incumbent to place the Chanukah lamp by the door of one's house on the outside; if one dwells in an upper chamber, place it at the window nearest the street. But in times of danger it is sufficient to place it on the table. Raba said: Another lamp is required for its light to be used, yet if there is a blazing fire it is unnecessary. But in the case of an important person, even if there is a blazing fire another lamp is required.

Also to note a lot of this is covered in The Jewish Holidays a Guide and Commentary

Chag Sameach!

>Essentially, we can't know anything substantive about the purported Jesus or his alleged ministry,

Price is quite agnostic about historicity. His position is essentially "there's little reason to believe any of the NT is history but we can't know for sure." He even presented an alternative explanation for Jesus in Deconstructing Jesus.

>because the Easter events eliminated or obfuscated all historical facts in the gospels.

Begs the question. Nothing in the gospels can be considered historical. The gospels say a lot about what some people believed about Jesus. All one can learn from them is matters of historiography, of ethnography. There's no way to recover any actual history from them. As Schweitzer himself pointed out.

>As for the historical figure of Jesus, the debates are primarily about Jesus' message and teachings.

No. Just no. The debates among the questers for the historical Jesus, Crossan's Jesus Seminar crowd, and others, assume there was a historical Jesus. They aren't debating whether there was in fact a historical Jesus but rather about what people thought about the narrative Jesus.

>My point is, however, that there's little debate about the primary events of Jesus' life among scholars.

Gobsmacked, I am. Even among Christian scholars of Christianity and the NT there is considerable disagreement about the primary events of the alleged Jesus' alleged life.

>There's still debate about what the alleged Jesus is assumed to have actually preached.

There's even debate about the methodology used in those debates. See, for example, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity

>The diversities in early Christianity largely were Christological, attempting to understand how Jesus fit into the divine identity. [citation desperately needed]

Also prepend "alleged" to "Jesus" and "the divine identity." And please tell us that how the early disputes over whether Jesus was flesh and blood but also divine, or flesh and blood only but worthy of worship, or only seemingly flesh and blood, or something else again, were "attempts to understand how the alleged Jesus fit into the divine identity." Just for example. After you've done that I'll bring up some of the many other instances that blow that absurd claim out of the water.

>material can be contradictory without ahistoricity as a conclusion

Oh that's sly, as well as irrelevant, logic-wise. "Some material is contradictory but nonetheless historical" does nothing to support the history of this or that contradictory material. Being contradictory doesn't rule out it being historical, that much is true. But it sure AF indicates the possibility or likelihood of it being ahistorical. Only if one can find any actual history in it, only if one can resolve the conflicts, can you say that the material is historical. To date, no one has made a very good argument that the material is historical.


> I would further submit that the Epistles of Paul are a source for the historical Jesus,

Really? I'd like to hear your arguments on that. Because Paul said what he knew of Jesus he "learned from no man." He didn't hear about Jesus from any person. He didn't hear about Jesus at all. He said that everything he knew about Jesus he knew from scripture (meaning the Hebrew Bible) and from revelation. To me that doesn't to him thinking of Jesus as someone who recently trod the Earth.

Did Paul say anything about his Jesus' life or ministry? No. (Isn't it interesting that Paul, the first one - that we know of, that is - to preach the crucifixion says absolutely nothing about the events leading up to it, the events that are and have been for many centuries the established Christology without which Christianity makes no sense? And that those crucial events were first alluded to only a decade or two later?)

Does Paul at any point indicate that he thought Jesus was a person who recently trod the Earth? The only possible instance I can think of is Galatians 4:4, "Then in the fullness of time, God sent [exapostellō] his Son, born of woman, born under the Law." The verb as used in the Old Testament is connected with the sending of spiritual beings, angels e.g., or personified Wisdom as in Wisdom of Solomon 9:10. The basic form of the verb is regularly used in the OT to denote the sending of the Holy Spirit. Yes, it can be used to speak of ‘sending’ a person but the contexts make it clear what meaning it has. The identical form of the verse 4 verb is used in verse 6, to say “God sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son.” That's not an argument for Paul believing that god sent a physical (or docetist!) Jesus not too long before.

Curious too that in relation to those all important events of Jesus life and ministry, without which there would be no Xianity as we know it, Paul not only says nothing he says such stuff is nonsense! "Jews demand signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles."

Please tell me in detail why you think the epistles are a source for a historical Jesus.

>Paul's silence

Is not the issue. That's a flaming straw man you laid out there. Mythicists don't put forth his silence as an argument for anything (except as in the above context in which he completely ignores everything about Jesus that is important to Jesus being Jesus the Christ). Mythicists cite what Paul did say. (The genuine Paul, of course, not the pseudepigraphical Paul, nor interpolations like 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 "the Jews killed the Lord Jesus.") Abandoning the lens of modernity and examining what Paul did say, viewed through the lens of antiquity as best we can, reveals that he clearly thought of Jesus as a celestial being, crucified in one of the lower heavens (yeah, must keep in mind Paul's cosmology of the heavens as a series of literal domes above Earth) and resurrected there as well.


>First century secular sources. The idea of a "secular source" isn't exactly coherent at this point in time,

OP spoke poorly. What he should have said was "extra-biblical sources." Of which there are exactly zero.

>what secular source attests the existence of the Qumran community?

There is a whole shitload of archaeological evidence. Which, of course, is the best evidence one can have in historical investigation, far better than the utterly unreliable testimony of the gospels.

>In Byzantine history, there are no secular sources attesting a great deal of material, but there's no doubt as to the historicity of Justinian's persecuting the miaphysites.

Yeah, so what?

Look, I'm not arguing for a purely mythical Jesus here. What I am doing is calling into question the prior claim that there was a historical Jesus, and indicting the arguments used in support of that claim. Onus probandi and all that, y'know.

Heh. /u/LordKettering beat me to the punch on this one.

I actually really liked this, which surprised me as I was thinking the history was going to really piss me off. However the story is strong enough and the characters good enough to get past that.

Some not so minor badhistory:

• They got the wrong damn year. The Culper spy ring was actually organized in 1778, but the series has it begin in 1776. (Probably so it can include the capture of Nathan Hale at some point.)
  
  
• The show has Tallmadge coming up with the idea for the spy ring after suffering a brutal defeat at the hands of Rogers Rangers. In reality it was George Washington who approached Tallmadge about it. (One of the aspects of Washington as general that doesn't get nearly enough praise is how extensive and effective the spy network was that he started.)
  
  Now some minor badhistory
  
  
• The British uniforms really annoy me. They're generic British redcoat, even though the action takes us to many different places. British units could be determined simply by the color of the facings on their coats, sometimes even by just the pattern of lace and the style of buttons they used. None of this is apparent except in the uniform of John Andre (the only character with the "non-generic redcoat" uniform".
  
  
• Robert Rogers. He actually formed two units of Loyalist rangers during the course of the war. He formed the Queen's Rangers in 1776 (the unit portrayed in the show), and the King's Rangers in 1779.
  
  
• Robert Rogers' Queen's Rangers uniforms. I've got no idea what's going on with those. I guess they thought that the uniforms of the Queen's Rangers were too pretty for the portrayal they wanted to give Rogers? Roberts' Rangers (of French & Indian War fame) are often considered the ancestor of the modern American special forces, so perhaps that's why they made the uniform look sooo close to a WWII Ranger uniform?
  
  Now for the good:
  
  
• I liked the portrayal of the loyalty oaths (though I have no idea if the wording of that one was historic). This was something that both the Loyalists and the Patriots did, in addition to having men sign loyalty petitions.
  
  
• I liked the detail of the black petticoat--that's also straight from history.
  
  
• The uniforms for the 2nd Continental Light Dragoons were actually very good.
  
  
• I was worried about the officer portrayed as a dandy in the previews (the one with the black gloves). I was afraid that they were going to make all the British officers that way and was glad to see it was just him and that the other officers all had distinct personalities.
  
  
• I agree with /u/Lord Kettering's assessment of Major Hewett as being portrayed rather well. He's not presented in a villainous way, but as an extremely efficient administrator.
  
  
• Rogers was apparently a drunk and quite abrasive (and probably an alcoholic) at this point in his life (he had actually been arrested by both the British and the Americans for spying and one point in his career), though I'm not sure I agree with the portrayal of him as a pure mercenary.
  
  >even helped capture Nathan Hale (something I really hope they include in the series).
  
  I rather suspect so--the preview clip at the end of the episode shows scenes of Rogers muttering about a spy and traitor.
  
  I'd definitely recommend watching it. The story is strong enough to make the badhistory not matter so much. Plus the first episode is available for free on Amazon's Instant Video.
  
  Edit:
  
  >Only a handful would (like a single cobbler in Boston), and most of those who did were drunken indigents begging on street corners, sailors lost at sea for weeks on end, and the insane. Two main characters have beards
  
  To be fair to the show, one of the main characters who has a beard is a sailor/smuggler/spy/soldier. Of course he's not currently at sea and his beard is nicely trimmed, so there's that. Also Rogers was apparently a drunk and an alcoholic (or close to it) by this point in his life, so maybe that's why they're portraying him with a beard?
  
  Edit 2:
  
  Just remembered that Captain Simcoe (portrayed as the main villain) [Spoilers ahead](/s "was briefly captured by American forces but that wasn't until 1779 when he was held for a few months and then exchanged. He certainly wasn't specifically targeted for capture.")

There's a lot I could say as the history of the sciences and medicine is an area of great interest to me (I'm contemplating doing my dissertation on it), but a lot of it largely speculative and without facts to back my points. What I mostly want to draw your attention to is a nice little book I picked up last year, A Short History of Scientific Thought. It's a general piece, but a good start point if you're interested. And each chapter does have a list of further reading at the end.

Admittedly only the first 50 pages cover pre-renaissance, but so much happens after that I can forgive it. It covers changes in thoughts, things like the growth of universities and the impact of the printing press. There's a list of Arab thinkers who covered areas like medicine and astromony from the 8th century to 13th. People forget things like math or medicine too as important areas.

I remember learning about Newton in one lecture, and our teacher made a scathing comment about how he was a Christian and an Alchemist, like it was something to be ashamed of. Religion was interwinded in the history of humanity, and it's foolish to try and seperate them due to modern views. Take Alchemy for example. We all learn it's a bunch of silly hocus pocus. But that wasn't always the case (Check out Distilling Knowledge if you're ever curious about the shift from Alchemy to Chemisty and the history of the disciplines!)

Read and learn my friend! Nothing is ever so black and white as some like to paint it. There are so many branches of science, many of which are more important at different times and likely to get more focus. And remember, it was the churches, the monks and monastaries what preserved and copied many of the ancient texts we have at our disposal today. I think people who claim there was a dark age, a suppression of knowledge are looking at it the wrong way. I am of the personal opinion that the development of the printing press in the 15th Century does not get enough credit. It is due to that we saw the sudden explosion of texts being more readily available to a wider audience. This meant more minds to read, to learn, to critique the assumed knowledge of the time.

A boy who gets a C minus in Appreciation of History can't be all bad.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, ceddit.com, [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fbadhistory%2Fcomments%2F5jqa97%2Fthe_lies_of_a_meme_the_truth_of_crusades_the%2F&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
2. /r/lewronggeneration - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=/r/lewronggeneration "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=%2Fr%2Flewronggeneration&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
3. http://i.imgur.com/IMzmqer.jpg - archive.org, megalodon.jp, [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIMzmqer.jpg&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
4. Here's the original comment thread - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=http://www.reddit.com/r/lewronggeneration/comments/5jlsai/life_sure_was_better_during_the_crusades/dbhfbma/?context=10000 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), ceddit.com, [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Flewronggeneration%2Fcomments%2F5jlsai%2Flife_sure_was_better_during_the_crusades%2Fdbhfbma%2F%3Fcontext%3D10000&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
5. Rodger Crowley - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1RW8ieYILjMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Roger+Crowley%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU5o2m4ofRAhUqqVQKHbnPCJQQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q&f=false "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3D1RW8ieYILjMC%26printsec%3Dfrontcover%26dq%3Dinauthor%3A%2522Roger%2BCrowley%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26ved%3D0ahUKEwiU5o2m4ofRAhUqqVQKHbnPCJQQ6AEIJjAC%23v%3Donepage%26q%26f%3Dfalse&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
6. Charles Martel - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBattle_of_Tours&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
7. Peter Wilson - archive.org, megalodon.jp, [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FThirty-Years-War-Europes-Tragedy%2Fdp%2F0674062310&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
8. /r/atheism - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=/r/atheism "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=%2Fr%2Fatheism&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   
9. Turns out that the Pyrenees are a b... - archive.org, [megalodon.jp*](http://megalodon.jp/?url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Roncevaux_Pass "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [archive.is*](https://archive.is/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBattle_of_Roncevaux_Pass&run=1 "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")
   
   ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))

From what texts I have read, muskets and arquebuses generally had better penetration against armor at the same relative range compared to composite bows. I think this video offers a good general understanding of the differences in penetration as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8

In addition, this book:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Native-North-American-Shields-Fortifications-ebook/dp/B00CS9JUYI/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Native+american+shields+armor&qid=1569820171&sr=8-1

States that Native Americans often switched to muskets over bows because the accuracy of a musket was better in terms of direct fire, and would be unimpeded by foliage.

--------------------------------------------
Sorry for the lack of formal footnotes above, but this is Reddit and I honestly couldn't be arsed. However, here's some pasta-and-sauce of great goodness; Dunn is still the go-to guy for a lot of this stuff:

Akenson, David, If the Irish Ran the World: Monserrat 1630-1730 (Liverpool University Press, 1997).

Beckles, Hilary, "'A Riotous and Unruly Lot': Irish Indentured Servants and Freedmen in the English West Indies, 1644-1713", in The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 503-522.

Dunn, Richard, Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624-1713 (Chapel Hill, 1972).

Galenson, David, "The Rise and Fall of Indentured Servitude in the Americas: An Economic Analysis", in The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 1-26.

Ligon, Richard; Kupperman, Karen Ordahl (ed.), A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados. Hackett Publishing (Kindle Edition, 2011). Links: US and UK.

Lowenthal, David "The Population of Barbados", in Social and Economic Studies VI, (1957), pp. 445- 451.

Miller, Kerby, Emigrants and Exiles: Ireland and the Irish Exodus to North America (OUP, 1985).

Rodgers, Nini, Ireland, Slavery and Anti-Slavery: 1612-1865 (Palgrave, 2007).

Not the original poster, but a few of the more popular books on the topic:

The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command and Gettysburg -- The Second Day seem to be the two big ones.

There is also more recently Gettysburg: The Last Invasion