Originally Posted by J-D

Show me some who do.

Originally Posted by J-D

This is obviously impossible. If book A quotes book B, the author of book A must have read book B before writing book A. There is then no way that the author of book B can have read book A before writing book B. If one of them is a copy, the other must be the original, at least relatively speaking; the 'original' might in turn be a copy of something still earlier, but it can't be a copy of its own copy. What you can't ever have is this:
http://tinyurl.com/ye7zsaz

Originally Posted by J-D

Nonsense. Confronted with any document, even a fictional document, a historian wants to know what in it is credible and what isn't. No historian would suppose for a moment that the novels of Jane Austen have any value as historical evidence for the existence in reality of any of the characters named in them. However, they do value as historical evidence in other ways: for example, Sense and Sensibility is of value as evidence that in the early nineteenth century it was considered improper for an unmarried woman to correspond with an unrelated man to whom she was not engaged. No historian would conclude that solely because some things in a document are not true, it is reasonable to dismiss it as containing nothing of any historical value. Historians consider the Behistun inscription an important historical source even though many of them doubt the historical accuracy of some elements of the account recorded there.

Now it may be that there are good evidential grounds to dismiss the canonical Gospels as containing nothing of any historical value. I haven't seen them yet, that's all.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Let's look at what some of the requirements are for dealing with texts based on some actual historical methodolgy used by actual historians.

from wiki regarding authenticity and provenance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method


1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

So, for a start, how would you respond to these questions?

Originally Posted by dog-on

?

Mark cribs from Jose then a later writer inserts Mark into Josephus.

I don't see the impossibility here.

Originally Posted by J-D

As follows:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't know.
6. I don't know.

Note that my answer to 6 is not 'None', it's 'I don't know'.

Originally Posted by dog-on

Rip off the cover pages of Jane Austin's book and eliminate the knowledge that Jane Austin wrote fiction, leaving only the text of the story.

Now apply your method...

Originally Posted by dog-on

You have given the answers that would qualify you as an objective historian.

Get it?

Originally Posted by J-D

No, I'm afraid I don't.

Originally Posted by J-D

It's fairly easy to tell when reading Jane Austen that it's fiction. You don't need the cover pages, or prior knowledge. In Northanger Abbey she mentions the fact explicitly near the end of the story, although it's fairly obvious even near the beginning.

That aside, I don't see what your point is.

My point is, to repeat, that it's extremely common for written works of all kinds and genres to include some elements which have historical evidential value and some which don't.