Historical Jesus and Historical Tank Man: A Similitude?

[steve43]

Would you say that the "default" mode on Josephus is to accept what he says unless there is FIRST-LEVEL evidence to the contrary?

If you want supportive evidence before believing what he writes, you are left with virtually nothing.

[Mental flatliner]

When reading any original historical source, I treat it as written in good faith until proven otherwise. Without this rule, there is no such thing as knowledge of history.

That is not a generally accepted principle in historiography. Some would agree with the principle in any case, but nobody competent would agree that it is the only way to get a knowledge of history.

I think what you mean to say is that this is not YOUR generally accepted principle.

And if it's not, you set your standards way too low to be effective. If you're willing to accept modern theory over original sources, you'll never find yourself on the side of authentication.

I'll throw you a bone. This is a quote from a man considered to be not at the top but THE top of Hittite studies, Trevor Bryce:

"When studying any history, one should endeavor as much as possible to allow the people to speak for themselves."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You can't take anything as a certainty. Josephus is not necessarily reliable. He exaggerated some things, and spun some things, but he is a better historiographer (he names his sources) and different prior probabilities matter too. Josephus might be provisionally (not dogmatically) taken at his word for mundane or ordinary claims (such as names and events of the Herodian court for which he had first hand sources), but he is not believed at all when he says a sheep gave birth to a cow in the Temple. The nature of a claim itself matters. Some claims are objectively more extraordinary than others. If somebody tells you they were late for work because they got a flat tire, that person might be lying, but you wouldn't find the claim suspicious. If they say they're late because they got abducted by aliens, you are going to be a lot more skeptical.

[Peter Kirby]

When reading any original historical source, I treat it as written in good faith until proven otherwise. Without this rule, there is no such thing as knowledge of history.

That is not a generally accepted principle in historiography. Some would agree with the principle in any case, but nobody competent would agree that it is the only way to get a knowledge of history.

I think what you mean to say is that this is not YOUR generally accepted principle.

No, that's wrong too.

[MrMacSon]

Rules are for everyone, including moderators.

YOU need to support your claims in all places requested before you have the right to demand I do the same. If you don't lead by example, you're not a leader, and you're not suited as a moderator.

You're 'special-pleading'.

You are the in the affirmative position. You need to back up your own claims. In particular, you have made assertions about the content of the Gospels without naming chapter and verse. It is not legitimate to say anyone has to prove the Gospels DON'T say something. What do you want me to do, post the entirety of the Gospel of Matthew to show that the authors never claims to be part of the Twelve (or to be anybody at all). The author of Matthew never speaks about himself in the first person at all.

I'm proud and glad to be a Christian.

I never have to rely on distorted claims to support my beliefs, all I have to do is let history play out and ultimately I find myself on the right side.

Unfortunately, that means I also bear the entire weight of the burden of proof (your half and mine) because your half is too mentally weak to carry yours.

Time to offload the dead weight.

You have confirmation bias.

There is an ethic:"he who avers must prove".

Saying "your half is too mentally weak to carry your [burden of proof]" is a cop-out.

[Mental flatliner]

No, that's wrong too.

I just gave you a quote from one of the world's leading historians.

I hope you understand if I reject your point of view in favor of his.

Reasons why no other source but primary can give us a knowledge of history:
--Once an event takes place, it's gone forever. It's preserved only in memory and in writing (if someone takes the time).
--Within 100 years, the memories are gone.
--In that 100 years, how many political figures do you think make the attempt to have court historians write their own wishful thinking?

--Within 1000 years, 99% of the written documents are gone
--Within 1000 years, fiction writers have blanketed every genre of entertainment dozens of times over
--Entertainment is always more popular than reading a history book

It's not just that we lose history, our histories are replaced with unadulterated crap. Without written primary sources, you're not just ignorant, you're mislead.

What do you suppose we use to learn about early Mesopotamian history already 4000 years old or more?

[MrMacSon]

"When studying any history, one should endeavor as much as possible to allow the people to speak for themselves."

When studying history it is appropriate to find additional/other information that verifies what someone has said about that period of "history".

The victors & their agents often write "history".

[MrMacSon]

Reasons why no other source but primary can give us a knowledge of history:
--Once an event takes place, it's gone forever. It's preserved only in memory and in writing (if someone takes the time).

Huh? The event isn't 'gone'.

It may be later misconstrued if not recorded accurately at the time.

--Within 100 years, the memories are gone.
--In that 100 years, how many political figures do you think make the attempt to have court historians write their own wishful thinking?

Most documents about biblical times were written r finalised > 100 yrs later ...

--Entertainment is always more popular than reading a history book

It's not just that we lose history, our histories are replaced with unadulterated crap. Without written primary sources, you're not just ignorant, you're mislead.

Yep. Theology is entertainment.

[Mental flatliner]

"When studying any history, one should endeavor as much as possible to allow the people to speak for themselves."

When studying history it is appropriate to find additional/other information that verifies what someone has said about that period of "history".

The victors & their agents often write "history".

No, that would be a limitation of history.

Rather, you should build a composite picture using all primary sources available.

[Mental flatliner]

Huh? The event isn't 'gone'.

Show me the conversation Abraham Lincoln had with his wife while they were in the Ford Theater.
(All of it verbatim, if you don't mind. It has a great deal of historical value.)

I'll wait.