spin

Not simply because in a lapse we didn't follow it. Doh!

You're waffling Ben C. If the procedure is wrong we correct it coherently. Our best understanding must fit attempts at objective procedure otherwise you have arbitrariness. If you don't have a transparent notion of methodology guiding your honings-in then probably you are being arbitrary and incoherent.

It can't be a matter of not following good procedure. It must be your intellectual opponents not self-correcting.

I'd be at a loss to understand one's refusal to use strong criteria of evidence, if it weren't for the fact that the data at stake is of a religious nature and liable to social and intellectual taboos.


spin

No Robots

Internal evidence allows us to anchor texts in time:

The Qumran texts known to date, therefore, attest personages and writings of the Hasmonean period, but not of the Herodian period that followed. The suggestion has accordingly been made that these texts were deposited in their caves in late Hasmonean times rather than during the first Judean revolt against Rome, which occurred over a century later in 66-70 CE (cf. I. Hutchesson and GL Doudna in The Qumran Chronicle 8 [1999], numbers 3 and 4). This proposal is noted here only because it underlines the strikingly Hasmonean character of the internal evidence for dating the texts.—"Jewish Messianism and Early Christology" / William Horbury. In Contours of Christology in the New Testament / Richard N. Longenecker, ed. (Eerdmans, 2005), p. 11.

patcleaver

Some ancient writing is more reliable than other ancient writing. Much of ancient writing is philosophy or business records or other writings that is likely to be reliable unless there was some political or religious motivation to change it. However, I do not think any writing related to religious beliefs is likely to be reliable at all.

It would be hypocrisy to treat Christian religious writing any different than Pagan religious writing or Hindu religious writing. Why should we treat the myths of the Christians or Jews any different than the myths of the Aborigines of Australia?

We can not use religious writings as history because the religious writers were extremely biased by their superstitious religious faith to write whatever they wished were true to support their religious beliefs.

6,000 religions prove that religious beliefs are fiction that is simply made-up and believed-in without any credible evidence. We cannot base history on the religious beliefs of religious writers - any more than we could base history on the ravings of a lunatic.

spin

I don't see the relationship between your comment and the citation you provided.


spin

No Robots

Allow me to provide emphasis:

This proposal is noted here only because it underlines the strikingly Hasmonean character of the internal evidence for dating the texts.

spin

Noting the "Hasmonean character" of the internal evidence for dating the texts is an attempt to connect the text to a historical context. Whether the attempt is successful or not, that points to good procedure.


spin

spin

The Wiki entry for primary source is not a bad introduction to the issue of primary sources in historical research, as is Marwick point #7.


spin

Roger Pearse

This is merely a further set of vague assertions, irrelevant to the question put to you. I take it, then, that you cannot answer the question.

If you are indeed the product of one book, would you care to share with us what that book is? That might be useful to discuss.

I'm sorry that you didn't either answer the question, or else admit that you made up the statement in question. Please don't do this.

Whatever our religious position, we need to refrain from asserting with utter certainty stuff that we only hope is true, as it can only deceive others. Is that your wish? In this forum, anyway, your claims will be challenged.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

We have already discovered in this thread, however, that you have no idea what is "good procedure", as you are making all this up.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Using the royal plural, Roger, makes your poor judgment seem even less sound.


spin