GakuseiDon

I'm debating someone who believes that Remsberg's list is valid here.

He says: "I quoted Remsberg to show that no one writes on jesus. That's it. There is no inconsistency here, as I will show you again in the next post. I hold that hearsay is not historical evidence. I never go against this."

Here, he is asked, "Why is it then that Josephus, an historian of the first century and one of the primary sources we have for information about the first century, is discounted as an authentic reference simply because he was born ~ 4-7 years after Jesus' alleged death? I do not find such an argument credible".

He replied: "I think the argument here is that he cannot be a first hand account. Obviously all good historians rely on first hand accounts."

I've quoted Lowder's and Kirby's conclusions based on how the NT and Josephus's shorter references (if genuine) can be considered prima facie evidence for a historical Jesus, but he isn't interested. He holds to the argument that the evidence has to be "first hand accounts".

Are there any websites on how historians evaluate their sources? If Josephus's shorter reference to Christ was considered genuine, is this not in fact still hear-say? And as such, should it even be considered?

Finally, are there any websites that have actually evaluated Remsberg's list (either positively or negatively) that aren't apologetic ones?

Vorkosigan

It's not valid because most of the books on it can't be expected to have mentioned Jesus, and partly because, as I think Layman pointed out once, Remsberg made errors and some of them were not in the right timespan or were no longer extant. We've discussed this before. Look in the old archives, not in the current one.

Ha. Let me know if you find one.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

I think the general point is that a historian without firsthand knowledge of events is either working from written sources or oral sources.

If the historian is working from written sources then the question becomes the reliabiilty of the written sources being used. Eg the reliability of Eusebius for the 1st and 2nd century CE is a question of the reliability and authenticity of the written sources he used such as Hegesippus.

If the historian is working from oral sources then the general problems about reliability of the sources apply. However there is a special problem with oral accounts of events happening many years ago. Unless special efforts are made to accurately transmit an oral account, (eg using professional reciters or putting the account in verse for ease of accurate transmission and recall), there are limits on the time an oral account can be transmitted with any accuracy or reliability. The time limit varies between cultures but is usually no more than 120 years and may sometimes be as short as 80 years.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

How can we determine what the time limit is for ANE cultures? It seems to me to be impossible.

andrewcriddle

One possible interesting study is how far back Herodotus (in the parts of his work that sem based on what people told him during his travels) is able to write reasonably accurate history.

Andrew Criddle