Re: Philo Wasn't Entirely Dependent on Aristeas for his Knowledge of the Translation of the LXX
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:11 pm
Stephan -- let's make this about Celsus!
Do we have the writings of Celsus?
How do we know that we have an accurate portrayal of what Celsus wrote?
Let's assume that the answer to the second question is Yes.
How did Celsus know about events before his time? What were his sources? Did Celsus believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Was his information reliable?
How can we know if those sources knew about events before their time? How can we know if those sources were documenting verified history or if they were sharing garbled information or propaganda or whatever?
Look at other histories written around the time of Celsus. A Roman author (Seneca) from not long before Celsus wrote that much of the information written by historians was typically false, exaggeration, myth, bunk. We know much of the history in the books of the Bible is bunk. Josephus also wrote and believed lots of bunk. He is only half-way reliable when he speaks of his own times.
That was world of Celsus: historians knew about their own times but all too often made stuff up about earlier times. That's not about "us". It's about "them"!
Many books about how to do historical research (written for students of history) will stress the fundamental importance of relying on contemporary evidence. One historian illustrated the importance of this by saying that historians rejected the report that Martin Luther committed suicide because that report only appeared as late as 20 years after his death. The point was that contemporary evidence nearly always trumps later accounts.
Only when later accounts can be demonstrated to have relied on earlier reliable sources are they useful for the historian of the earlier events.
Other historians said Moses led the Israelites into Canaan and built the temple and founded Jerusalem. Most ancient historians simply did not know what "really happened" before them unless they had first hand accounts from the time -- and they very rarely did. When the did, they advertized the fact to demonstrate their own reliability.
Do we have the writings of Celsus?
How do we know that we have an accurate portrayal of what Celsus wrote?
Let's assume that the answer to the second question is Yes.
How did Celsus know about events before his time? What were his sources? Did Celsus believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Was his information reliable?
How can we know if those sources knew about events before their time? How can we know if those sources were documenting verified history or if they were sharing garbled information or propaganda or whatever?
Look at other histories written around the time of Celsus. A Roman author (Seneca) from not long before Celsus wrote that much of the information written by historians was typically false, exaggeration, myth, bunk. We know much of the history in the books of the Bible is bunk. Josephus also wrote and believed lots of bunk. He is only half-way reliable when he speaks of his own times.
That was world of Celsus: historians knew about their own times but all too often made stuff up about earlier times. That's not about "us". It's about "them"!
Many books about how to do historical research (written for students of history) will stress the fundamental importance of relying on contemporary evidence. One historian illustrated the importance of this by saying that historians rejected the report that Martin Luther committed suicide because that report only appeared as late as 20 years after his death. The point was that contemporary evidence nearly always trumps later accounts.
Only when later accounts can be demonstrated to have relied on earlier reliable sources are they useful for the historian of the earlier events.
Other historians said Moses led the Israelites into Canaan and built the temple and founded Jerusalem. Most ancient historians simply did not know what "really happened" before them unless they had first hand accounts from the time -- and they very rarely did. When the did, they advertized the fact to demonstrate their own reliability.