What I said about Walllace is well understood in Scotland, go read a book and stop being rude.
"One of the great myths in Scotland's national past is the life of Sir William Wallace..."
Morton, G. (1998). The Most Efficacious Patriot: The Heritage of William Wallace in Nineteenth-Century Scotland.
The Scottish Historical Review, 224-251.
Hm.
In the past 300 years hundreds of thousands of books and millions of papers have been written by classical historians, historians, archaeologists, biblical scholars, NT scholars, early Christian scholars, scholars of Judaism, Near Eastern scholars, and so on, regarding Jesus' history. By Michael Grant's estimate we had 60,000 books in the 19th century alone. Of these, despite radically anti-Christian sentiments (so much so that they
began the historical inquiry into Jesus' existence) that pervade historical Jesus studies virtually no expert in any field relevant here argues that we have anything remotely resembling good reason to think that Jesus possibly didn't exist at all. Put differently, the most critically examined person of all time is regarded by virtually everybody with any relevant expertise as obviously historical.
Wallace, however, is little better than King Arthur.
We don't even have a single legendary account within a generation or two of his death (like Mark) and no contemporary sources who can attest to his family and followers (like Paul) not really much of anything.
Look up Wallace and find out yourself instead of insulting me out of your ignorance.
Wouldn't that be an appeal to authority? I mean, by your idiomatic definition?
Wallace is a historical figure about whom many myths are attached. Any history book on him will confirm for you what I said.
That sounds exactly like what many have said regarding Jesus: an historical figure about whom many myths were attached but whom any history book will confirm was historical. Granted, there are differences: our evidence for Jesus is vastly greater in all respects and the critical study of his person far greater (not just in terms of numbers of study and the time period over which his historical person was doubted, argued for, argued against, etc., but also in the comparative lack of credulity by many a conservative Christian scholar and an overwhelming, selective skepticism by both Christian and non-Christian scholars which isn't applied to other figures from history.
Perhaps you best demonstration yet of bias, contradiction, and intellectual dishonesty. In a single post, you appeal to authority, you insult another when you've pledged you wouldn't, you've defended as an "historical figure" one for whom are evidence is pathetically scarce, and you have failed to cite the sources you appeal to.
