AtheistGamer

So I'm currently reading a book called Evidence Explained (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Elizabeth Shown Mills. It's a citation manual. I'm only into the first few chapters but a few things in the book have jumped out at me. I'd like to address one of those things in this thread.

On page 27 the book says: "Multiple Sources for a particular statement confirm each other only when each is a reliable source of independent origin offering firsthand knowledge."

I've pointed out to some apologists that the Gospels copy each other verbatim too much in order to count as having independent origins. They reply that the Gospels probably shared an Oral tradition (I have yet to see any evidence for this supposed Oral tradition), which explains the verbatim word copying.

But anyway my question is wouldn't having a shared Oral tradition rule the Gospels out as having an independent origin just as much as having a shared literary tradition?

Roger Pearse

We don't do ancient history like this, because we don't have that kind of evidence for most of it.

AtheistGamer

I see. But wouldn't that make ancient history mostly educated guesses? Well anyway thanks for setting me straight on it. I'll have to put away this book and find a good book on how to do ancient history then.

andrewcriddle

If you are seriously interested in the special problems involved in doing ancient history then I would recomment Ancient History Evidence and Models (or via: amazon.co.uk) by the late M I Finley.

Andrew Criddle

Joan of Bark

I find it strange that Judeo-Christians will accept oral tradition when it comes from Palestine, but are skeptical about such a source when it comes from, say, the Iroquois.

Oh, right, the prior was inspired by God. Nevermind ...

AtheistGamer

Why thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for.