stephan huller

This is a silly argument. If anything the reporting by the Church Fathers is superior to the rabbinic authorities because it is near contemporary. By the time the rabbinic tradition gets around to reporting about the Sadducees they probably disappeared. Josephus is another matter but even here - how reliable is this single source? Why prefer Josephus - a figure unmentioned by the rabbinic tradition? If you bring forward evidence from Josephus you are admitting the imperfection of your own tradition because they seem to tell the same story about Josephus's appearance before Vespasian under the name of Yochanan ben Zakkai. How can you rely on a tradition which depends on a fictitious person or one whose name was preserved inaccurately? Its best not to cite 'imperfection' as an objection to ancient testimonials because there simply are no completely reliable witnesses from any of the three monotheistic traditions.

No one finds a perfect partner for marriage. No one raises perfect kids or has a perfect life or career. Life is full of imperfections and the reporting about early traditions in Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity is just one of those 'imperfect things.' Get over it. One thinks that you put up these objections so you don't have to seriously consider matters to do with early Christianity. As long as Christianity is monolithic you don't find things to challenge your own faith. As a much smarter man than me once said, when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares into you. As long as 'Christianity' is tightly defined your own belief in a tightly defined 'Judaism' stays intact. That's a self-serving exercise which gets in the way of your understanding . As I said there is no such thing as a 'perfect religion,' 'perfect tradition,' 'perfect understanding' etc. It's childish to think so.

aa5874

But, then how reliable are your sources?

Please present the sources of antiquity for Yochanan ben Zakkai.

Perhaps your Yochanan ben Zakkai was not a figure of history

stephan huller

Sometimes you don't know how funny you are aa.

Duvduv

This is precisely the point I was trying to make, i.e. that accepting the existence and source requires an acknowledgement of FAITH. But secularists do not admit to their faith in the Christian sources, and I can never understand this.

Then of course they do not accept sources who tell them that the epistles were actually written by a guy named Paul, but they accept that texts not only were actually written by some guy named Justin, Irenaeus or Tertullian or Eusebius, but that what is written in them is true.

mountainman

The usual criteria of historical methodology is that any given source may be forged or corrupt. Provisional acceptance or provisional rejection of church texts depends upon one's attitude to key sources, such as, in this case, Eusebius, who has been called "the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity".



Retrojection of propaganda.

Now answer me this question: do you have an explanation for why the author(s) of the "Historia Augusta" would invent their own sources, replete with hundreds of forged documents, and other sources which disagree with their invented sources?


Normal historical methods have ample provision for rejecting and/or accepting sources as integrous. This is neither tiresome nor disruptive, but rather the selection of appropriate hypotheses drawn from the evidence by which the ancient historical truth may be tested and refined.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

Everything requires faith. I have to believe when I am driving the car that in the event of a car veering towards me I will react in time to avoid it. Do you remember what it was like the first time to step on the gas pedal and hold the steering wheel? You were keenly aware of every motion in the car. It seemed like at any moment another car could come crashing into you. From the side. From in front. Then you started to become aware of the control that you had at the touch of your fingers. Now when we get in the car its second nature. But we get there by ignoring everything that distracted us in the beginning. You can't allow yourself to forget.

It's the same with marriage. How do I know my wife isn't cheating on me right now? That in the next playdate my son has that he might get seriously injured? That something bad might happen. It's life. Life is imperfect. To sit on the sidelines and complain it isn't perfect enough is the logic of a loser or someone who is afraid of participating.

Not even worth discussing.

The point is that even if his name wasn't Paul, it is more logical to assume he went by a different name than it was wholly invented as some massive conspriracy. Someone wrote these texts. They are certainly corrupt. But the idea that these corrupt documents were corrupted on purpose (i.e. that someone forged these texts and then added another level of forgery on top of it just for fun is stupid and unreasonable). Their authenticity is found in the fact they have been subsequently corrupted.

Consider for a moment the discovery of early copies of the Quran in Yemen which demonstrate that our surviving texts are corrupt. This is what happens when things are 'in the world.' They get corrupted. I mentioned driving. I don't know if you have ever been laid before but it's never like the first time. You start out believing in love and that sex and love are one and the same. The next thing you are hanging out getting massages from a girl telling her its your birthday. As the old Earth Wind and Fire song goes, that's the way of the world ...

Duvduv

You are missing the simple point which I have repeated repeatedly: that accepting the claims of church writers at face value requires more FAITH than finding of EVIDENCE. And most secularists will not admit to this unfortunately.

Toto

No one has missed your point. We just disagree with you. Please stop repeating it - you will not persuade anyone by repeating it again.

Duvduv

On whose behalf are you speaking? And disagree about what?
That accepting unproven an uncorroborated claims requires faith?

Toto

I speak for myself and at least some others.

We disagree with your dichotomy - that you either have absolute proof, or you base your ideas on "faith."

It is possible in ancient history to speak of the most probable reconstruction of the evidence - admitting that we do not have absolute proof, but doing our best to examine and interpret the evidence and figure out the most likely explanation.

I think that is what scholars are doing when the accept the existence of the Valentinians or others as the most probable explanation of the evidence. They may be wrong in how they evaluate the evidence, but faith is not involved.

I have tried to explain this to you before. I'm tired of repeating it. Is there something about this that is unclear?