The massacre of the innocents has a historical record (the Bible). Just because there is no record of it anywhere else, doesn't mean it isn't historical.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Based on the population of the area at that time, it was likely only about 10-20 babies killed, and unfortunately in that day that wouldn't be a major event.
Atlantis is an awful example. It is very, very, very obviously an allegory in Timaeus and not in anyway implied to be historical fact. Pretty much the exact opposite of the Herod example.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course some written historical claims are more believable than others. Do you know how many things about individuals from this era are known exclusively from writing?
So you are telling me that Europe had trade relations with China already in the 2nd century BC, but no one thought of visiting them before Marco Polo in the late middle ages?
People didn't have direct trade relations with each other. Chinese goods might make it to Persoa or Europe through second or third-hand (Merchant from Luoyang sells his goods in Sogdia, Sogdians sell it in Ctesiphon, Persians sell it in Iconium and so forth). The Silk Road also isn't a formal institution, you won't find it described in premodern sources at all.
Maybe accept "Confucian" because "ism" is in the question? And then maybe have _______ism in the answer cell? (Not that I would have got it because I only tried Confucius first time round, I always forget what the religion is actually called)
Um, you know that it should be 200-1 BC? Not the other way around, because we always put the later year first and the most recent year last. Also, the order of the questions could be reversed, but that can be debated.
I really can't stand this verbal tic when translated into Internet posts and comments, for me it's less polite than "Look here, idiot" would be. Going out of your way to be dismissive in this way is always unwarranted.
I'm sorry but if BC was designated as Before Christ then wouldn't his birthday have been 1 AD ? They switched the BC designation to be Before Common Era to take religion out of it but they did not move the dates. I looked it up but still it is weird
Because the people who established the Christian calendar got a few dates wrong, eg. Herod died in 4BC so Jesus in Matthew's narrative must have been born then or earlier. And nobody felt like moving the entire modern calendar years back just to account for it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Based on the population of the area at that time, it was likely only about 10-20 babies killed, and unfortunately in that day that wouldn't be a major event.
That means there is absence of evidence...
As much as you cannot assert that it certainly didn't happen, you also cannot assert that it certainly did happen.
Another example is the existence of Atlantis.
Despite it being mentioned in ancient text, Plato's Timaeus, it is still not considered a historical fact.
Why would we believe the Bible but not Plato? What reason do we have of trusting one source over the other?
I would consider anything solely known from the Bible and no other source just as dubious as Plato's Timaeus.