Take Julius Ceasar. There's plenty of contemporary and independend corroborating evidence there.
Let's take his conquest of Gaul.
He kept a diary.
Couriers going back and forward between Rome and Ceasar's legions also reported to the senate. And this included spies from Ceasar's enemies in Rome (and he had lots of them... pretty much most of the Senate, lead by Pompei)
So we have Ceasar's diary where he details certain battles and strategies.
We have independend and corroborating writings from people in Rome, telling the same story.
We can go to the location sites of the battlegrounds and find Roman artefacts and things that corroborate the fact that battles took place there. We can show a Roman presence in these regions during the time of this conquest.
We can also look at Gaul and Germanic cultures, which also make mention of those same battles and that same conquest campaign.
And the list goes on and on.
These are all Roman sources and those conquered by Rome. All of which any written accounts even Caesar's own writings have a gap of 1,000 years from original to earliest manuscript copy.
Artifacts are confirming and that is why based on the manuscript history and the artifacts we know Rome existed. Is it your point that there is archeological evidence of historical events in the OT and NT? If so, here is some light reading on the matter by Sir William Ramsay archeologist:
The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
The above tome is from the early 20th century and since then have been more discoveries.
Clearly, that isn't true.
You do nuke history holding the NT to a different standard as other ancient history. The manuscript evidence shows your bias.
This is just not correct. The conquered ones also had survivors. They also had neighbouring cultures who knew what went down and who weren't conquered. And then there's also the archeological finds of artefacts on those very battlegrounds. Etc etc.
Also, the Roman accounts of Ceasar's conquest are in fact written by Ceasar's enemies. When Ceasar returned from Gaul, he took his legions with them and into Rome. The Senate, lead by Pompei, fled and were eventually defeated by Ceasar in Greece (if I remember correctly).
Where are these writings by conquered Germans and Gaulic scholars? What is their manuscript history from original to first copy? You must now apply your own standard to your own claims.
What does internal civil war between triumvirate rivals have to do with historical neutrality? They were all Romans. If there is a neutral Egyptian source which gives the account, please post it and also its manuscript history.
To say that this is of the same order as bible stories, is to seriously misrepresent the historical sciences and what we actually and primarily how we know what we know.
Actually no, as the difference between the ancient histories of the time, the Israelites and Jews recorded their history through scribes and prophets who recorded the good, the bad and the ugly. As it stands, and as Josephus points out, the Hebrews did not sugarcoat their history as the Greeks did:
[38] For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, 1 which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; for they take them to be such discourses as are framed agreeably to the inclinations of those that write them; and they have justly the same opinion of the ancient writers, since they see some of the present generation bold enough to write about such affairs, wherein they were not present, nor had concern enough to inform themselves about them from those that knew them; examples of which may be had in this late war of ours, where some persons have written histories, and published them, without having been in the places concerned, or having been near them when the actions were done; but these men put a few things together by hearsay, and insolently abuse the world, and call these writings by the name of Histories. (Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895.)
(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8)
Independend doesn't necessarily mean "neutral disinterested", nore must it even be a testimonial account. Suppose Julius Ceasar's record claims that his 13th legion did battle in a field near Paris. And suppose you go to that field, start digging and find the remains of Roman soldiers wearing a banner of the 13th legion dating to the correct period... That would be independend contemporary evidence.
Again, you assume there are no archeological evidence confirming the Biblical history. Again I offer some light reading.
The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
If you so choose to accept to read, and when finished, I will walk you through all the discoveries since then as in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).
Gallic / Germanic records mentioning said battle would be corroborative as well.
Show them and their manuscript history.
When Pliny the Younger writes down christian claims that he heared from christians, then that is not corroborative of the biblical claims... Instead, that's just repeating those claims.
Indeed and as the earliest reliable manuscript evidence of any of Julius Caesar's works is over 1,000 years from his life and works.
Yet do your question the Pliny the Younger as a historian? Did he not verify his statements with what was the current scholarship of his contemporaries? Either Pliny the Younger is reliable or he is not. Yet you would want me to toss out of all his works because he believed, in your opinion, a Christian fable?
Again you nuke ancient history.
The bible is a religious book written and maintained by believers of said religion. It is the very opposite of neutral.
Please see Josephus' comments as I posted above. Israel was a theocratic nation and every nation in the world was a theocratic nation as well. There is validated history throughout the OT and NT canon. Just about every empire conquered or enslaved the Israelites/Jews and they wrote about it in great detail. Unlike their contemporary kingdoms and empires they recorded the good, the bad and the ugly.
Everyone had 'religion' back then. There were no secular atheist kingdoms, or empires in antiquity. We don't get to such until the Soviet Empire in modern times.
Prove it. With extra biblical sources.
Indeed, and you have seen this before:
