Haran

Huh? What are you talking about? I mentioned this from the beginning... You misunderstood. Go back and read my posts. Did you know about the early church fathers saying that Matthew wrote down the sayings of Jesus? Did you know that there are may scholars today that believe so? If so, then you would have understood my statements from the start.

You seem to be implying that you "grew up" out of your superstitions (i.e. Christianity) after your quest for knowledge (which, by your tone, seems to have ended). Now how do you think that makes me feel?

Funny, me too.

This stinks, and I'm sorry for you and her. I have never understood this mindset, especially that of those who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.

Many of my atheist friends have had similar experiences with Christians which seem to have turned them away from Christianity. I can't fault you for reacting so.

I presented information that was requested. I didn't present it as the ultimate truth but as a possibility. I don't know why you continue to insist that I have not looked "at ANY of the details". I have no serious reason to doubt Eusebius' word. There are errors in his work as there are in nearly any work of history, but I do not see why they must be intentional falsifications.

I have no problem with this analysis except that I don't see Atheism being a more safe alternative. For instance, I can't explain why <a href="http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/1999/cyb19990917.html#1" target="_blank">Larry Ashbrook</a> walked into Wedgewood Baptist Church shouting obscenities and anti-religious slurs while shooting to kill. Or perhaps the infamous <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ct2/chat/" target="_blank">Eric and Dylan</a> of Columbine... If Atheism is correct, these guys seem to have won. They were obviously not afraid to die and hated life, just as in my example above, and they took as many with them as they could. Again, if atheism is correct, these guys got what they wanted...revenge...and escape at their own hands from the worldy into the bliss of nothingness.

Atheism provides no better answer to the question of life and morals. In fact, my theory says that the closer to non-belief, the more likely this kind of thing is to happen.

Please listen when I say that I'm glad you found morals that agree more closely with mine to live by. However, the fact is, there are those out there without a belief in God and ultimate punishment for their wrongs here on earth...and they don't think like you and I do.

Please read and reflect upon what I wrote above. It is not good enough to state that you believe you have "grown up" out of religion. I know better.

Yet again, the age thing comes up. Do you think I am a child without experience?

And you couldn't do these things as a Christian? This line of thinking baffles me. My church provides for homeless shelters, orphans here and overseas, and all kinds of help people. I, myself, also support various charities as do other Christians I know.

This false statement ignores a lot of history in my opinion.

This may be the thinking of an unfortunate minority, but does not reflect the thinking and actions of the majority of Christians I personally know.

I'm glad your life is so good. Married life is pretty good to me too. I am sorry that you work with so many who have "internal demons" that you have to help them with. However, I believe that some of them would think differently and might be surprised at your statement. I bet some of them think they are helping you with your own "internal demons". Regardless, the situation is quite different for me.

Wow... Now that was pretty arrogant. So, I just can't handle Atheism? Oh, I see... Religion is a crutch...the opiate of the masses...

Again, I can understand your reaction. However, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater... Nearly every Atheist friend I know has had a similar experience. Each one has told me that this turned them from Christianity. Why? Are those people the base of Christianity? Jesus is the base of Christianity. I implore you to turn back to Jesus and show those Christians how it is done. I know, I know...

Frankly, my views probably do strike you as fundamentalist because I believe in the Christian message. I would imagine that our definitions of fundamentalist would differ. I am not a liberal Christian. However, I am thoroughly embarrassed by the Southern Baptist Convention, Falwell, etc... I think they are becoming like the Pharisees of Jesus' day and are having a very hard time seeing it.

---------------

Finally, since you've given me some life stories about growing up out of religion, I'd like to tell you some of mine.

I grew up in a religious home. We went to church nearly every Sunday. (Don't get me wrong, my parents are great and loving. I have never heard them cuss or seen them drink.) Along about junior high and high school, I began to resent having to go to church. For the kids my age at the church I attended, it seemed like a popularity party of kids from my school. (I am still not impressed with this church, but I now know that kids tend to act this way and there are some very good and sincere people who attend there regularly.)

My father was in the Choir and my mother sat with her friends since my Sunday School usually let out late, so I would often skip church claiming to have been sitting in the back. Sometimes a friend of mine and I would go sit out on the playground until time for the service to be over. The church was big enough that no one important ever noticed. (To this day, I am not fond of large churches - very impersonal.)

I always tried to follow Christian morals, but I wasn't very good at it. I even dragged a good, non-churched friend to a social one time. There was an invitation and he decided to go forward with no coaxing from me. The man he talked with that night phoned him at home and came by for visits so much that his mother put a stop to it and I never heard anything more about this friend's conversion. I knew the man who did this. He had a good heart, but unfortunately didn't know when to give a person some space. I felt sorry for them all...sorry for the man and sorry for my friend (I'll call him John - a nice ambiguous name).

In college, I moved away from home two different times for computer co-op jobs in two different large cities. I can count on one hand the number of times I went to church during that time. I began to drink with some of my friends though I never did drugs or anything horrible, after all, one of the places I lived was New Orleans.

When I moved back home, I began drinking and smoking (some) with some of my friends, which I had never wanted to do before. I visited parties where my non-believing friends would drink, have wild sex behind closed doors, and slip off to do drugs (believe me or not, but I only drank...none of the other stuff).

Anyway, one night, I went out to be a security guard with some of my friends at a fair. My friend John, the one that I mentioned having dragged to church, was there. He and the others were amazed to see that the old church-going me had decided to go their way. One went so far as to ask me (and I still vividly remember it), "Don't you feel guilty or something to God?" "Nah! No way!", I lied as I drank, smoked, and cussed with them.

This was the last time I ever saw my friend John who was a smart and promising student of engineering in college. He died at one of those parties...

Many of those non-believer friends (who had started out in high school with innocent but rebelious drinking) wound up with serious problems. One became a cop and then got busted for selling alcohol to minors. One died in a shootout withe the police after a high-speed chase (I never knew why he did it). The others never amounted to much. I wouldn't be too surprised to find out a few of them are in jail today.

After the incident with my friend, I began searching out more about the religion I grew up in. I knew there was more to life than this non-belief and turned back to God. However, I did not want to blindly believe because of my parents, so I began to read...a lot. The more I read, the more I realized there was to read. Eventually, I vowed that it would be a life-long process of learning for me.

So, you see, I too have had experiences. Mine have been quite the opposite of yours. I, too, have made an in-depth study of my religion, other religions, and no religion. Years later, I have learned the original languages behind the Bible and discovered who the best scholars are. I also realize that one can't honestly say that one read about religions in his/her twenties and is now a well-informed and confident Atheist.

While I may not be able to "prove" a lot of my stances, I believe they make sense and, in my opinion, are both possible and even probable. On some things, the jury is still out, but we'll see. I have found no reason to "lose" my faith from my studies and experiences. I have seen and experienced the destruction that comes to those who have no belief in God and punishment for their wrongs here on earth.

Remember that while you may have been able to find and piece together undestructive morals, there are plenty of non-believers who do not, do not care, and frankly have no ultimate reason to care. Please, whether what I have said makes any difference to you, always continue to question your conclusions...

As you well know, today is a day of remembrance for Christians...the day that the one who saved us from our wrongs here on earth arose in triumph over death. Please consider him again and show those other Christians who wronged you the humble, moral and charitable servant to others that they were not.

Sincerely, In Christ my risen savior,
Haran

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

ex-preacher

Haran,

There is much more I have to say about the authorship of the gospels - but I just don't have the time right now (I'm working towards a Ph.D. in history - mid-life change since my findings forced me to resign from ministry). As you know, this was a tangent from the original topic - the genealogies. Perhaps in a few weeks we can start another thread on the authorship of the gospels - until then.

Sojourner553

Hi Haran:

I found your post to be (with maybe one exception) very sensitive and heart felt. My intent is to respond in a similar manner.

I remember you saying in a post to ex-preacher that you don’t respect HIS authorities just by namedropping. Why would not the same apply to you?

I believe you have found modern scholars. What do they say and WHY! I do like to be familiar with Religious Apologist responses.

Again, name-dropping doesn’t count. As you surely know, You and I could probably find a “scholar” who thinks aliens wrote the Bible. It is important to look at the content of the message, not go by a name.

That was the ONLY reason I brought up the Muslim fundamentalists – because this is what they do – rely on authority without thinking about the details themselves.

So where’s the beef? (Remember the old Wendy’s ad?) This shouldn’t be hard for you to provide. You just seemed to exhibit a disinterest in doing so…. So correct me. The ONLY reason I brought this up was because of YOUR attacks on atheists in general stating s/he “must” “feel that his/her life is miserable and not worth living…” “.. atheists morals are adopted piecemeal, a little bit of this and a little bit of that. What ever fits your fancy. “

Substitute Christian for atheist and sign my name. You would be ballistic. You never saw me write any such general attack. And your comments are all false. Look at the variety of Christian sects and dogma – I could have gone in this direction if I was on the attack.

My intent was to respond to your general attack: not to hurt your feelings…

One of the things that first bothered me happened when I was about ten. My Baptist Sunday School teacher told me in response to my question that even if one never heard of Jesus, they would still go to hell.

My spiritual tingling told me that was false. For this would conflict with an all-good God being fair.

So how would you respond to my old Baptist Sunday School teacher?

She’s a fundi Baptist. When I have told the details of this to people –religious and nonreligious – they are ALL appalled! It was her hardened heart determined she knew God’s will that bothered me.

There were other incidents.

Earlier in high school I tried to witness to a Jewish girlfriend. I had a Catholic friend I looked to for help. She saw the movie EXORCIST, and the next day pronounced she thought she was possessed too. I saw the power of suggestion at work. It was weird.

I asked other Christians I knew for help on my Jewish friends questions what heaven was like. I got a large variety of answers – including that the angels would wait on humans as servants because they were never “tested” on earth. I recognized these were fantasies and that there were a large variety of interpretations on everything.

I prayed so hard for my girlfriend’s father to get a job. (I thought if prayer worked this would be it – for my friend said she would consider converting if her father found a job.) He had a horrible time finding a job, and finally had to settle in a completely different field at a major pay cut.

I realized after talking with my Jewish friend that she had a respectable tradition herself, and that I had no logical, rational basis for “proving” my religion was superior. (Other than band wagon: She would be more accepted, less persecuted. She wanted truth. I could not prove I had it.)

My experience with my fundi relative drove me to search for answers as to “What made her think she had the authority to “know” exactly what was God’s mind. I fully expected my studies to “find” God. The opposite happened

It was my research that broke the final straw. It was after reading an analysis on Mark 10:17-8, (significant because I had come across it many years earlier when I was reading straight through the bible, and I remember having a major reaction “Huh?” to it). Essentially it would have Jesus lie – I’d later learn Christian apologists claim Jesus was just being “coy” by this verse. To me he could have said different words to keep it “coy”…

I think people can use the symbols of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha to find spiritual truths though. I am really not attacking Christianity the way you are atheism. I was just showing you my spiritual journey.

doubt Eusebius' word.

I strongly disagree with you here. Ever read of the times he lived in a history of Christianity book? (Try Paul Johnson’s book on the HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY– he is religious by the way, not an atheist) The Orthodox/Catholics were cruel AND Eusebius a leader/chronicler. Do you know when the Orthodox first gained power under Constantine, the first thing they did was outlaw all other Christian sects – in the most hateful way. You’d be shocked at the meanness! The Orthodox didn’t go after the pagan until decades later.

But back to the point: I thought the other Christian sects the Orthodox were persecuting were really pretty nice. So Eusebius is a villain in my book. What about my quote from him saying it is sometimes necessary to lie. You need to research that one. Protestants don’t like him either – this is not an atheist vs. theist issue.

I am very familiar with the Larry Ashbrook case: He had severe mental problems, his father had just died, he had no job, and he was about to loose all the support his father provided, including a place to live. Sounded like a Baptist came up to him and said something which he took as hypocritical and syrupy and he went off the deep end. He was a mental case though like Andrea Yates and probably would have committed suicide if the Baptist had not crossed him at that time probably sounding too empty-headed happy to him and he was in major depression.
I remember when I said “good morning” once, and a grumpy unhappy secretary barked back to me “what’s good about it.” I learned from this episode, that people (when they don’t feel good) don’t like to hear other people around them giving trite happy sayings. I now say “Morning” in a cheerful, but less syrupy way myself.

Eric and Dylan appear to have been atheists (or at least non-religious). But the suicide note left behind by Eric speaks of a rage from being treated as socially inferior by his classmates as the cause. He was willing to kill himself – probably because he hated himself – he blamed his classmates for his self-loathing, so he was going to take them with him.

Here are main points from his suicide note:
“How could this happen?" It read: "By now, it's over. If you are reading this, my mission is complete....Your children who have ridiculed me, who have chosen not to accept me, who have treated me like I am not worth their time are dead. ….Surely you will try to blame it on the clothes I wear, the music I listen to, or the way I choose to present myself, but no. Do not hide behind my choices. You need to face the fact that this comes as a result of YOUR CHOICES. Parents and teachers, you f---ed up. You have taught these kids to not [sic] accept what is different. YOU ARE IN THE WRONG. I have taken their lives and my own--but it was your doing. Teachers, parents, LET THIS MASSACRE BE ON YOUR SHOULDERS UNTIL THE DAY YOU DIE."

BTW-- this doesn’t make his classmates sound very spiritual either… as we both know teenagers can be so cruel to each other. That was the lesson many psychiatrists were trying to point out from this episode.

True, if he were religious, maybe Eric would have been afraid of going to hell!

But fear of hell doesn’t seem to scare most religious people from committing crimes. Studies have been done to try and prove atheists have higher crime rates– without success. Tentative studies I have seen indicate there are less atheists than Christians proportionally (ie as a percentage) in prisons and death row. There was one recent study done, showing Christians did NOT have a lower divorce rate that atheists. But the sect with the highest divorce rate – the evangelicals-- had a higher divorce rate than atheists. I had to smile it was the evangelicals – they are so whacky.

Back to cruel crimes --atrocities. If you accurately racked up all cases of atrocities, I would suspect there would be a higher incidence of religious fanatics than atheist fanatics. An atheist fanatic has no belief in an eternal reward for killing themself. Therefore they have to mental problems (I would probably classify the Columbine killings in this category because of the revenge/rage factor being an outcome of them being depressed. But it is also probably a mixed bag here.)

History is replete with examples of religious fanatics who envision themselves being rewarded in heaven for their dastardly deeds.

I remember being appalled once reading of a religious man who set his estranged wife on fire as he was reading a verse from Psalms-- something about burning her for purification. The newspaper had the exact verse. I felt so sorry for their children. He was probably a mental case though, like Andrea Yates. Evangelical religion and mental illnesses are truly a bad mix.

(So how do you propose to get evangelicals into mainstream religion so their mentals to go whacko? Or is this not a priority because THIS life isn’t important, right?)


But my morals probably are different than yours. I believe gays are born that way, and therefore should not be harassed if they are law-abiding. There was a six year old child in my neighborhood that wanted to be a girl. He was also a great artist. My fundamentalist relative knew Maurice. Didn’t matter he was born that way…gays STILL make her “nervous”.

I’m pro-choice. In a perfect world I would probably be against abortions. To me abortion is the lesser of worse evils in the world. Plus all the science I have seen indicates that the human brain has not developed in the first trimester. I am against abortions in the later trimesters except to save the life of the mother, or else will stave off a deformed creature that will soon die after birth.

You mean you “believe” you know. I would need to debate you on the DETAILS on this one. You know my feelings about general statements with no facts… (Smile)
__________________________________________________ ______________________

About 98% of people follow the religion of their parents. So Muslims could use the same arguments you use. Statistics would imply from this: You are Christian ONLY because you were born that way.

I also have to believe something is TRUE first. I have known people who insisted it doesn’t matter if religion is true, because it makes one feel good to believe.
This is not good enough for me. I am passionate for the truth. If there had been ANY hint religion was true, I would have erred on the side of religion.

And I do not see religious groups acting wisely on politics, really caring for the poor and environment—for future generations. I saw the statistics on how much church money is spent on the poor – it was far less than 10% -- don’t remember the exact statistic now. The churches around me are multi-million dollar stadiums with posh architecture and choirs. I would be surprised if more than 2% went to the poor/needy. I saw this stat once, it was around this number.

The US spends far less on charity than Europe. (I think the stat is about 1% vs 5% in Europe. Europe also has a higher percentage of atheism than in the US—especially northern Europe.)

So yeah there are charities. And I applaud the people who run them. It is like a band aid though. How much of YOUR church effort is in charities?

quote:
If you tell me you’re a Republican I will tend to believe your heart is too hardened to monitor yourself.

If you are a Dem – I applaud you and am more impressed by your statement.

From your personal account – you obviously do not count “minimalist” Christians-- I call them. Ask them if they are religious and they will say “yes”, but they don’t act “good”. I remember when in high school, two guys I knew came up and were saved in the morning. By evening, they went on a wild booze and drug spree.

So were these guys religious—sort of “the flesh willing, but the spirit weak” thing going on? Or would you say they were not religious?


I said “some” people couldn’t handle that. Where did I say YOU were in this category? (Smile)



I
have read or known of Christians, Jews, Muslims, even Moonies claiming that they lived better lives after discovering religion. But the same applies to philosophers and secular people finding a goal in life to work for.

If a Christian states religion made them a better person, I would have to accept a Moonies testimonies to be consistent.

I also look at how religious groups interact with politics:

I suspect you like President Bush. I despise him! I think his policies will drag this country to look like Brazil in a decade – wider chasm between rich and poor, raging deficits, bankrupt social services.
Shudder, it is the religious who love him! no thanks.
__________________________________________________ ______
Frankly, I split people between humanism vs fundamentalism. I don’t think highly of the morals of Fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslim, Buddhist, NOR atheists.

I do think highly of people who base their views on humanism (defined here as caring for humanity as a whole – doing good to others – which is far far older than the Golden Rule my friend.) This group uses the symbols of their dogma to do good to their fellow man, as opposed to insisting ONLY their way is best (making them act undemocratically to put this mildly.)

Humanist do not condemn all the good people who follow other religions as going to hell.

Many religious individuals I know “believe” for the “easy reward” of heaven. Sounds like a con job to me – also based on greed.

What if the devil took over and became more powerful than God? There is now no reward for being good—maybe even a punishment. How many people would choose goodness? I would. I have taken that call (in my mind) by choosing atheism. Because society does try to punish one for it – but it is in my view the pure road for truth.
____________________________________________
Wishing you a Happy Easter! Again – I have no problem with your symbols to find spirituality. I would just ask you to question if any hatreds/prejudices that wells up in you as a consequence of your beliefs – to become more spiritual – less literal/fundamental in your views.


Sincerely in truth,


Sojourner

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

spin

It seems that this thread about the geneaological problem having two diverging genealogies leading to Jesus has been waylaid into a discussion about theories of text dependence, the two hypothesis theory and related arguments. This is not what the thread is about.

References to Julius Africanus and his musings on the genealogical problem earlier mentioned in the thread are a red herring. Africanus writing 150 years after the reputed time has no relevance to the genealogical information, unless one can supply the trajectory for the emergence of his data, but this is not possible.

We are left with two conflicting genealogies which cannot be resolved by fundamentalist literalist readings. They diverge in two areas yet return in after the two divergences through the male line to Jesus.

One should admit that this would suggest that we are dealing with speculation about genealogy, a speculation which was current in the period. As an example there is also another genealogical list which bears on the subject, 1 Chr 3:10ff. It supports Matt's down to Shealtiel, then gives Zerubbabel as being from a different son of Jeconiah. Then for Zerubbabel the genealogy supplies all his children, none of who relate to the Abiud mentioned in Matt. We should accept that genealogical speculation was a norm and one cannot use it as historically significant.

There is also strong evidence for genealogical speculation for the high priestly family which ends in the long list in 1 Chr 6:1-15 to the exile and other places after that time. Compare that list with what is found in Ezra 7:1-5 and 2 Esdras 1:1-3. (I take each of these books to be later, ie after the fall of the temple in 68 CE.)

You should accept the genealogies for what they are, a trend in an era, which have no relation to history.

Sojourner553

Yeah, you're right. I let Haran take me down the path of justifying why I am not a believer. I should have started another post for that one.

Sojourner

CX

I'm not sure I really want to jump on this bandwagon, but a few points are in order. I realize this thread was originally about the differing genealogies in GMT and GLk, but frankly I don't have much interest in that discussion. The only reason to suppose it even warrants discussion is to defend some notion of biblical inerrancy which, given that it is an inherently nonrational position, is really pointless to argue against.

I am more interested in the comments regarding a semitic GMt and the church tradition the GMt came first. Unlike Haran, whom I normally esteem greatly in these discussions, I can see very little reason for positing a semitic Matthew either as a proto-Matthean gospel or as a sayings source used later. That Papias is quoted as saying that Matthew wrote something down in a semitic tongue is not terribly reliable information to base any logical position on. Even eusebius who quotes Papias liberally seems to think very little of his intelligence and reliability.

I secondly see no reason to think this tradition doesn't begin with Papias (or whatever Presbyter he is himself referring to). That Origen mentions nearly a century later, eusebius quotes Papias nearly 2 centuries later and that Jerome says something similar yet 3 centuries later is not conclusive evidence of anything.

As far as I know there is no other evidence for a semitic source document underlying the Xian text legacy. That it suits certain theological purposes is obvious. Furthermore I find the idea that Matthew the apostle wrote down sayings in Aramaic (or Hebrew) and then later used that and the writing of an interpreter of Peter (according to tradition of course) to write down a gospel in Greek is absurd bordering on ludicrous and shows a willful blindness to the truth.

We cannot, of course, perfectly reconstruct the development of the Xian text legacy but we can judge the probabilities of various hypotheses being true. In my opinion and that of a great many mainstream biblical scholars a semitic Matthew in any form, though not completely discountable is not worth serious consideration. In addition I believe, though I'd have to look up references, that the idea that Papias is talking about a semitic sayings source that underlies the Greek NT has been largely dropped by mainstream biblical scholars.

Aside from that I must say that I am disappointed how this thread has degenerated into largely pointless ad hominem diatribes for or against atheism/Xianity. I don't know about anyone else, but I find such discussions tedious.

Haran

Spin, threads devolve... This is not the only one that has done so.

First of all, Africanus' remarks, if you'll remember, rely on statements from Jesus' relatives. So to me, in essense, what you seem to be saying is similar to me not being able to trust anything my parents tell me about my great grandfather that they learned through their parents. I feel that I can trust this information past on to me as I believe Africanus' felt relatively comfortable with the information which he had received from trusted sources.

Frankly, the methods that you seem to employ, if applied to areas other than New and Old Testament criticism, would destroy most of history as we know it. With your unreasonably strict criteria, I doubt we could know much of anything about history.

Haran

Haran

I took you down that path, eh? I seem to recall a rather unfeeling jab at religion in your terrorist comment. You never quite seemed to pick up on the fact that I was simply trying to show you that atheism provides no better solution in similar situations. I was not trying to attack you beliefs but to show you that you really had no room to complain.

I suppose it's fine to challenge religious beliefs on an Atheistic website, but you can't go down the path of challenging your own Atheistic worldviews...

Haran

Haran

CX,

Emotions are a funny thing that hang out sometimes even in atheists. Sojourner's posts hit me wrong.

Aside from this, I don't see much substance to your dismissal of the theory that Matthew wrote first except to deny that Papias must have meant what he wrote. I suppose this viewpoint which several here maintain is beginning to irritate me. If it is a writer writing for and about Christianity they must have been lying or twisting the truth. Please... Why would the early church fathers have said these things? Why would several well-known scholars take up this view in spite of the current scholarly trend? Perhaps to challenge the status quo? I usually fall in line with mainstream scholarship, but here I part company...

Haran

spin

Haran:
--------------
First of all, Africanus' remarks, if you'll remember, rely on statements from Jesus' relatives.
--------------

This may be his claim, but that doesn't help much historically, does it? (Who are these relatives, if Africanus was writing well over 100 years after the supposed event, great grand nephews or something? How do you construct a historical trajectory? You can't.)

Haran:
--------------
So to me, in essense, what you seem to be saying is similar to me not being able to trust anything my parents tell me about my great grandfather that they learned through their parents. I feel that I can trust this information past on to me as I believe Africanus' felt relatively comfortable with the information which he had received from trusted sources.
--------------

This is called trust, not history. If you are interested in the latter, there are certain methodologies you need to follow, one of which concerns your approach to evidence. Hearsay doesn't make it.

Haran:
--------------
Frankly, the methods that you seem to employ, if applied to areas other than New and Old Testament criticism, would destroy most of history as we know it.
--------------

Frankly, Haran, you're not in touch with the methodology. One has to become more critical of sources. One simply cannot trust the words of a Josephus just because they made it into a book. You need to test what the writer says before you can build upon it as evidence. If you can't then you have no foundations.

Haran:
--------------
With your unreasonably strict criteria, I doubt we could know much of anything about history.
--------------

With unreasonably lax criteria one can say anything.

History starts when one uses strict criteria to sift the data and evaluate it in order to use it as evidence. We then stop slavishly repeating what our sources wrote and enter into discourse with it. We weigh up what the writer is saying ideas for, who is the audience, how the information was come upon, etc. We use interdisciplinary methods dealing with economics anthropology, chemical analyses (including pottery analysis for clay origin), carbon-dating, and whatever else might be necessary to test hypotheses.

.